Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lards].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lards] (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.

Stretford and District Gas Board Bill [Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Waterworks Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Hampshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health (No. 9) Bill,

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health provisional orders (No. 10) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guildford Extension) Bill [Lords],

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

As amended, considered: to he read the Third time To-morrow.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,

Consideration, as amended, deferred t ill To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. BRIANT: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to cases where large amounts of Poor Law relief have been granted to persons to whom Army or Navy pensions were due, but which were delayed in issue; that in a recent case £3 a week was given in poor relief to a widow and her family for nine months, and when the pension and arrears, amounting to over £100, was received by her she spent the whole amount without repaying any part of the relief granted; if, as similar cases have occurred, arrangements can be made by which the guardians can claim direct from the Ministry of Pensions when relief is given in anticipation of a pension which is ultimately granted, and thus relieve the ratepayers of a financial burden which is not fairly theirs; if he is aware that the Minister of Health, in a circular, No. 281, impressed on boards of guardians and all Government Departments the necessity of close co-operation in public administration; and if he will see that his Department assists in this direction?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am giving this matter my personal consideration, and I hope it may be found possible to make arrangements which will meet my hon. Friend's proposal.

SPECIAL DIETS.

Mr. GILBERT: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has recently withdrawn the special diet allowed to pensioners in tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus cases; and whether, since the withdrawal of these diets is a breach of faith to the pensioners concerned who received their pensions plus the special diets, and who will now be compelled to purchase such necessary diets from their pensions, he will withdraw the circular issued by his Department cancelling these diets?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Burslem on the 26th June, of which I am sending him a copy. Additional allowances for special diet have not been withdrawn from pensioners suffering from tuberculosis or diabetes. The allowance is indeed expressly continued in these cases by the new Regulations when the rate of pension or allowances and other circumstances justify the grant. I may add that the allowance in question is not provided for by the terms of the warrants, and has never been attached to any class of pension. No breach of faith is therefore involved by the modification of the Regulations.

PENSIONERS (DEATHS).

Mr. GILBERT: 7.
asked the Minister of Pensions the number of men, women and children pensioners in charge of his Department who have died during the years 1920 and 1921?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret to say that during the years 1920 and 1921 the approximate number of deaths among pensioners was as follows:

Men
19,500


Widows and other Dependants
16,000

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. GILBERT: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the limit of years allowed by his Department during which a widow can claim a widow's pension in the event of her husband, being an ex-service man, dying from disease or wounds caused by the War; and whether, in view of the number of men who have died as a result of war service after a period of years, he can see his way to propose a longer period of years than is now allowed during which a widow may claim a pension?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the time limit of seven years in Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, and I would refer him to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth, Central, on the 13th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the period of seven years extended in special cases?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The cases are very few in number. I am told there are only ten, and I am treating individual cases on their merits.

PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the case of pensioners wishing to commute their pensions considerable hardship is inflicted when they are compelled to board for commutation hundreds of miles away from their homes; and can he arrange that in the case of ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary they shall be boarded for commutation of pensions by a board nearest to their homes, thus entailing upon them the minimum of expense and physical effort?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): Special arrangements have been made for dealing with these particular cases by the appointment of medical referees in London, Manchester and Glasgow, and all possible regard is had to economy and convenience in arranging the requisite examinations. I may add that if an applicant resides at some distance from the nearest centre he is paid the cost of his railway fare.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Why is it not possible, seeing that enormous number of Irish soldiers who fought in the War, to board in some part of Ireland? Why should these men be dragged across to London? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently an officer who had both legs shot off and has to crawl along the floor on stumps had to come to London and—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for speeches.

CHILDREN ALLOWANCES.

Mr. NAYLOR: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has had his attention
drawn to the hardship of stopping children allowances in treatment cases, particularly in cases of prolonged treatment, in respect to children born more than nine months after treatment commenced, as laid down in the new regulations, paragraph 242D, sub-paragraph 3 (a); and whether, seeing that this regulation is at variance with the terms of Article 24 (3) of the Royal Warrant, he will consider the advisability of revising the interpretation mentioned in the Fortnightly Circular G, paragraph 7.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for Mr. Macpherson): My right hon. Friend is not prepared to modify these instructions in the manner suggested. Treatment allowances were designed to meet the circumstances and family obligations of the patient at the time that treatment commenced. Article 6 of the Royal Warrant has been generously interpreted so as to permit of allowances being paid for children born within nine months after treatment commenced; but they are not properly payable in respect of children born at a later date.

LABOUR CORPS (PRIVATE F. G. STACEY).

Mr. MYERS: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions, in reference to Private Fairfax George Stacey, No. 181,699, Labour Corps, who died on the 2nd February, 1922, whether he is aware that he was discharged from the Army as unfit on 21st August, 1917; that he attended St. Bartholomew's Hospital and the London neurological clinic for treatment up to the 4th November, 1921; that after that date he was too ill to attend; that owing to his disability the pension which he was receiving was increased; that the doctor of the neurological clinic certified that his death was undoubtedly due to weakness caused by war service; that his widow applied for a pension more than three months ago; that owing to her circumstances she has since been in receipt of poor relief; and that no decision on her case has yet been received from the local war pensions committee; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to her case being dealt with at the earliest possible date?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The late soldier was discharged on account of dysentery and subsequently received pension and medical treatment for that disability and for hysteria. He died some 4½ years
after discharge from broncho-pneumonia which, after full consideration of all the circumstances, the Ministry were unable to accept as being connected with military service. The widow was informed on the 21st June of the rejection of her claim to pension and of her right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the staff employed at any of the headquarters of the Ministry in London consist of ex-service officers and men; will he give a comparison of the numbers so employed with the number employed on 30th June or other convenient date in 1921; and will he say how many ex-officers are now employed as compared with the number employed on the above-mentioned date?

Mr. MACPHERSON: During the past 12 months the total number of staff employed at, headquarters was reduced by 1,867. As a result of substitution 2,107 ex-service officers and men were employed in the Ministry's headquarter offices on the 1st June this year, as against 1,670 on the corresponding date last year. I regret that I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question. Officers are not shown separately in the statistics kept of the ex-service staff.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. HURD: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reviewing the question of the gap of five weeks between the lapse of unemployment benefit and its renewal in accordance with the undertaking of the Prime Minister, he will specially consider the position of ex-service men who have at present no chance of employment; and when will he be able to announce the decision of the Government on the subject as a whole?

Sir R. HORNE: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind, but it would be impracticable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to distinguish between ex-service men and others. As regards the last part of the question, I hope that an announcement may be made shortly.

Mr. HURD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some special dis-
crimination should be given in the case of ex-service men who are suffering in this way from unemployment?

Sir R. HORNE: A great deal of time and attention have been devoted to this subject, and I am afraid the conclusion is that it is impossible to make that discrimination now.

WAR OFFICE.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are employed at the War Office at the present time two non-service intelligence or Press officers; whether he is aware that there are many trained journalists who served with His Majesty's forces who are fully qualified to discharge the duties now discharged by these non-service men; and whether he will take steps to substitute ex-service men for these non-service men?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Moss Side and Harborough on the 19th and 27th June, respectively.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Does that mean that my hon. Friend is going to get rid of these non-service men and put service men in their places?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No. If the hon. and learned Member refers to the answer I have mentioned, he will see what it means.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

AEROPLANES.

Mr. ALFRED T. DAVIES: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at the recent display of the Royal Air Force at Hendon the aeroplanes used were each, approximately, four years old; whether similar machines are being used in Iraq, Somaliland, and India on active service: whether any squadrons of the Royal Air Force are equipped with up-to-date aeroplanes; what number of new and improved aeroplanes have been supplied to squadrons of the Royal Air Force this year; and what is the cost of such supply?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): In answer to the first
question, it is true that the aeroplanes used at Hendon, with the exception of the experimental machines, were not less than four years old, but they were all thoroughly sound and serviceable, many of them recently re-conditioned, and all capable of satisfactory performance. As regards the second and third questions, the same general remark applies, but some of the squadrons abroad have been partly re-armed with new aeroplanes, and the four squadrons working with the Navy are being completely re-armed. The answer to the fourth and fifth questions is, that 10 aeroplanes of new type have been issued to squadrons since the 1st April, 1922, and that the approximate cost was £106,000.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the date of construction of the majority of machines now in use for air work in Iraq; whether these machines are satisfactory and their carrying capacity adequate when the proper load of petrol is carried for the desert journey; and at what date will more modern machines, such as those being now used on the, London-Paris route, be sent out to replace the older types?

Captain GUEST: With the exception of the Vickers type, all the aeroplanes used on the cross-desert route are either of 1918 or 1919 build; the Vickers, of 1921 build, with a few of 1919 and 1920. These aeroplanes are all serviceable, and it would be expensive and quite unnecessary to replace them at present. In the interests of economy, it is urgently necessary to use up existing serviceable war stocks of aeroplanes before ordering new ones. The aeroplanes are not specially built for the cross-desert route, and it is neither necessary, nor practicable to build a new type of aeroplane for every kind of work which the Air Force has to do. The civil aeroplanes used on the London-Paris route are of a variety of types, and would not be suitable for Royal Air Force work without extensive modifications. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force with new types of aeroplanes is fully recognised as one of the greatest importance and is being given constant careful consideration by my expert advisers.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that many firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft engines are being compelled to go out of business altogether through lack of orders?

Captain GUEST: I regret to say there is a good deal of truth in the Noble Lord's supplementary.

BURNEY AIRSHIP SCHEME.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if his Department has approved the Burney airship scheme; and, if any reservations were made., what were those reservations?

Captain GUEST: The Burney airship scheme has been referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence for consideration, and I do not think that it would be proper for me to make any further statement on the matter at the present time.

Mr. MALONE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Burney airship scheme has yet been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; and when a decision may be expected?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The Burney airship scheme is being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it is hoped that a decision will be taken at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the allegations now being made that civil aviation in this country has almost entirely disappeared, and that the aircraft industry is lacking in orders to keep it in a normal healthy condition, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

Captain GUEST: It would be impracticable to deal adequately with the state of civil aviation in this country by way of question and answer, and I can only repeat the suggestion made in my reply to the hon. Member for East Leyton on the 19th June, that, if the House desires, an opportunity to discuss the question can be taken on the Civil Aviation Vote, which is still on the Paper.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the
Leader of the, House, with a view to getting an additional Supply day for this important purpose?

Captain GUEST: I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the usual channels.

Captain W. BENN: I am asking whether the right hon. Gentleman will support those who wish for an additional day. He is aware that the 20 days are fully occupied with controversial and political topics.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Is it not advisable, seeing that a Committee is now sitting on civil aviation, that the matter should be left in abeyance until their first report comes forward, and is it riot a fact that that report is expected very shortly?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MARTIAL LAW.

Mr. SWAN: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will reconsider the continuance of British martial law in Egypt now that that country has been declared an independent foreign State?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject to his question of the 25th May.

Mr. SWAN: Thank you for the reply. On what grounds is martial law continued?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the hon. Member will look at the relevant White Paper he will find what he asks for.

Mr. SWAN: Could we get any information as to the grounds for the continuation of martial law?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think I have already given the hon. Member, or one of his colleagues, an answer on that very question. If he will put down a definite question I will endeavour to give a satisfactory reply.

Captain W. BENN: Who is responsible for the continuation of martial law? Is it the British or the Egyptian Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to have notice.

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT (MR. PEARSON).

Mr. CAIRNS: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Pearson, an administrator in the Egyptian Government Railway Department, has been for some time incapacitated for work through illness, and that he is now carried to and from his office daily since his sick-leave has expired; and whether, since this leads to inefficiency in the working of his Department, His Majesty's Government will instruct Lord Allenby to order his retirement?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information regarding the first part of the question. The remainder does not therefore arise. I should add that, in any case, Lord Allenby would have no power to intervene in such a matter.

Mr. CAIRNS: Will the hon. Member endeavour to get some information?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

TRUST FUNDS.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 9.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that there are persons domiciled in Great Britain who are beneficiaries of trust funds in charge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; will such persons be liable to taxation both in Great Britain and Ireland in respect of such funds; will opportunity be given them of having these funds transferred to Great Britain; and will he say when and to whom should application for transfer be made?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, discussions are taking place between the Imperial and Provisional Governments with a view to dealing with cases of double Income Tax arising out of the grant of Dominion status to Ireland. As regards the third and fourth parts, the question whether such funds can be transferred from the courts in which they are vested depends upon the circumstances of the litigation out of which the trust arose, and in some cases such a transfer would no doubt be possible with the con-
sent of all parties concerned, but His Majesty's Government see no grounds for any special steps in the matter, nor indeed would legislation on such a subject be practicable.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would it not be possible, seeing that these funds were paid in in Ireland at a time when Ireland was under the control of this country, for persons interested to transfer their funds to England for safety under existing circumstances, and will the right hon. Baronet consider the propriety of legislation in order to give effect to the wishes of beneficiaries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Baronet will read the answer, I have answered both those points.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Has the right hon. Baronet considered the propriety of legislation with a view to protecting the interests of persons who have paid funds into court on a certain faith and footing and who desire to transfer them to England now?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will any opportunity be afforded to Members of the House to discuss the terms the right hon. Baronet says are being arranged between the Imperial Government and the Provisional Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I presume the hon. Gentleman refers to double Income Tax?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Not necessarily in all cases. There may be other taxes of a like kind. Double taxation is contemplated in my question.

SINN FEIN OUTRAGES (SENTENCES).

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHERSHEE: 23 and 24.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, with reference to the case which occurred at Bromley, Kent, on 16th June, 1921, in which the police were shot at by Sinn Fein criminals, and two of the police concerned were awarded the police medal for bravery, and for which crime four men were arrested, one of whom got 12 years' penal servitude, and the other three got 10 years' penal servitude, he can state whether these men are now serving their sentence or whether they have been released; and, if so, on what date;
(2) whether, in the cases of incendiarism and attempted murder which occurred at Wandsworth, when six or seven arrests were made and convictions obtained against Sinn Fein miscreants, and at Mitcham, where one arrest was made and conviction obtained, and at Clerkenwell, where two arrests were made and convictions obtained, he can state whether these persons are still serving their sentence or whether they have been released; and, if released, upon what date, and after having served what period of their sentence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am not sure what is the Clerk-enwell case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but as regards the others the eight men convicted were released from prison in February last in pursuance of the amnesty for offences committed prior to the truce from Irish political motives. They had served from eight to twelve months.

ATTACK ON INSURGENTS, DUBLIN.

Colonel ASHLEY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information with reference to the happenings in Dublin during the last 24 hours?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I am afraid I have very little to add to the full and continuous reports which are reaching this country through the medium of the Press. The Provisional Government, as I said yesterday, are conducting these operations and they are not reporting their progress to me officially in any way. They appear to be persisting in their operations with resolution. There are considerable difficulties from the point of view of the great structural strength of the building in the lower portion of which the insurgents are ensconced, and the artillery have not yet made sufficient impression upon them to induce a surrender. There has been a certain amount of disorder in different parts of the City of Dublin by sympathisers with the insurgents, who have commandeered houses at different points from which they have fired on the passers-by and of course upon Free State troops. This again is a subject of some consequence. The situation is not wholly
free from anxiety, but we are confining our assistance entirely to supplying the Government of the Free State with any material they may require, and they have continued to decline any assistance of any sort or kind from the British troops, in which they are no doubt well advised, as it is undoubtedly an Irish quarrel, in which the Irish Provisional Government are acting in the sense of the mandate they have received from the Irish people.

Colonel ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give beyond what appears in the public Press? Surely he must be in communication with the Commander-in-Chief there and also with Mr. Cope, at Dublin Castle, who would inform him fully of what is going on?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have a good deal of information of one kind and another, but I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press which it would be useful for me to give to the House or which the House in its discretion would wish me to give. Naturally, I make continual inquiries and get a good deal of information, but, on the whole, I think the case is pretty fairly put by the reports which are appearing in the newspapers.

Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to understand from the answer that the British Government are giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, and, if so, what guarantees have we that those Free State troops will not mutiny and turn round against us?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are certainly giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, and I am sure that in so doing we are acting in full accordance with the wishes and intentions of the House when it passed the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill.

Mr. LANE-FOX: If we are giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, what steps are we taking to ascertain whether this is really a serious affair or only a sham fight?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In a sham fight people do not usually get killed, and I deprecate very much suggestions which seem to show that the Irish Provisional Government and the troops under their orders are not doing the very best they can loyally and effectively to carry out the Treaty and to maintain order in their
country. They are making an effort and they are suffering, and it, is quite true of both sides that there is little organisation. Both sides are weak, but it is certainly not a time to mock at a serious attempt made by men who are striking a blow for the freedom, order and ultimate unity of their country.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: If this be purely an Irish quarrel, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no interference on the part of British troops in Dublin?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I would like to know what action British troops would take, providing the Free State troops were finally defeated?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We have enough real trouble on our hands without my attempting to forecast our actions in such hypothetical conditions.

Sir W. DAVISON: If the—

Mr. SPEAKER: The original question has been very fully answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOST PROPERTY (POLICE CHARGES).

Mr. RENDALL: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what Statute and Regulations Scotland Yard charges 2s. 6d. in the £ on articles lost and found and restored by the police to the rightful owners; what portion of such percentage is paid to persons, other than the police, who assist in finding such property, and what becomes of the remainder; when lost property is returned to Scotland Yard by persons who demand and are paid nothing for their trouble, is the same percentage charged against the owner; and, if so, why?

Mr. SHORTT: The charges payable in respect of property found in public carriages are fixed by the Secretary of State's Order made under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, and the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907, to which I would refer my hon. Friend. The whole reward goes to the driver or conductor who deposited the property. If he does not claim the reward the loser is not charged with it.
The Order to which I have referred relates only to property found in public carriages and no award is chargeable in any other case.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICT CONMY (DISCIPLINARY SENTENCE).

Mr. FOOT: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether Arthur Conmy, who escaped from Parkhurst Prison, has been punished by being put into an iron belt and fetters connected with 6-lb. chains; whether this punishment is to continue for six months; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have this punishment mitigated?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether a prisoner who recently escaped from Ryde Prison and was recaptured has been sentenced to confinement in chains; if so, for how long; what is the weight of the chains; who passed this sentence upon him and who confirmed it; whether he has approved of this sentence; and how many other prisoners are at present undergoing this punishment?

Mr. SHORTT: I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. The chains have been removed.

Mr. FOOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in addition to the change in this particular, he will take steps to see that the whole system which imposes such punishment shall be abolished?

Mr. SHORTT: I said yesterday that the question of its abolition is under consideration.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Am I right in understanding that usually a person who escapes in that way is flogged, and that in this case chains were placed upon the man in lieu of flogging him.? Am I to understand that if chains are not to be used in future we are to return to flogging?

Mr. SHORTT: No. I am not quite sure whether it is possible to flog for trying to escape. In any case it would not be a substitute for chains.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman substitute some other penalty for attempting to escape than that of putting the person in chains?

Mr. SHORTT: I have dealt with that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA EXHIBITIONS.

Mr. HURD: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if he has received representations from the Somerset county education committee as to the mental, moral, and physical harm done to children and young persons by certain classes of cinema exhibitions, and calling for more effective control; whether this impression is confirmed by his Department; and whether he will invite the opinions of other representative bodies, both as to the exact nature of the evil and the means of remedy most suited to their local conditions?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir, I have received such representations. No doubt many films are exhibited which are not fit for children to see. I have recently consulted local authorities as to their exercise of the powers they possess under the Cinematograph Act, 1909. I will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOANS TO ALLIES (INTEREST).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the money advances made by us to other countries and to our request for interest on these advances as from October next, whether he will say what rate of interest is to be charged; and whether that rate of interest will be the same as the interest charged by America upon the debt we owe to that country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No request has yet been made to the Allied Governments in question for payments of interest in cash in October next, but they have been informed that His Majesty's Government must be regarded as free to make such a request. The rate of interest to be charged will be a matter for discussion, as is also the rate to be paid on our debt to the United States Government. Hitherto interest has been calculated on our advances to the Allied Governments in question at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, with some small exceptions. Interest on our debt to the United States Government has also hitherto been calculated at 5 per cent. per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES

ROYALIST MOVEMENT, GERMANY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether instructions have been sent to His Majesty's representative in Berlin with reference to the attitude that he should adopt towards any proposed restoration of the Hohenzollern or Wittelsbach houses to the throne of Germany; and whether he can assure the House that the chief interest of His Majesty's Government in Germany is the retention and stabilisation of the existing government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I returned to him on the 22nd June, to which I have nothing to add.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he appreciates the fact that any declaration by him would prevent this disastrous action taking place in Germany, and would, therefore, be far more useful made now than after the event in question?

POLICE, GERMANY.

Sir F. HALL: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government have intimated to the Allies that they do not propose to carry out, until 1925 the obligations entered into, consequent upon their acceptance of the London ultimatum of 5th May, 1921, with respect to the placing of the police upon a pre-War footing; and whether, seeing that this means in effect that Germany is retaining a military force largely in excess of that allowed under the Treaty of Versailles, he will state what steps will be taken to compel Germany to carry out her undertakings on a question vital to the establishment of European peace?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I have been asked to answer this question. The German Government has submitted proposals to the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control for the re-organisation of the police forces. These proposals are at present under examination by that body.

Sir F. HALL: Would not that have the effect of practically putting a large proportion of the police on a military footing?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I do not know what the proposals are, so I cannot say.

Sir F. HALL: 40.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the German Government is required under the Treaty of Peace, and conventions entered into subsequently, to place the various police forces under the control of the local authorities on the same footing as in 1913, and that the German Government have arranged to maintain 75,000 police in Prussia alone as a mobile State force with complete military equipment, leaving under local control less than 10,000 of the older men who are no use for military service, what action will be taken to compel the disbandment of this force?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. The information in my possession is that the German Government have not arranged to maintain in Prussia a total of 75,000 mobile police, with full military equipment; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Sir F. HALL: For how many police have the German Government arranged in lieu of the 75,000 mentioned in the question?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot answer that.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not obvious that recent events in Germany make it necessary for the Republic to maintain a sufficient police force? Are not my hon. Friends behind me simply helping the Monarchists in Germany?

Sir F. HALL: 41.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the present total strength of the police forces in Germany of which the Allies have reliable knowledge; and what proportion of the men are accommodated in barracks and how many live at home or in lodgings?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. Germany is allowed to maintain a total of 150,000 police in accordance with the Boulogne Note of June, 1920; the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have not reported that the police forces are over strength at the present time. The War Office have no detailed information as to
the number of police accommodated in barracks; this question is at present the subject of negotiations between the German Government and the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (RHINE AND SILESIA).

Mr. WISE: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine and Silesia since 1st April, 1922?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The cost of the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine and in Silesia for the period 1st April to 30th June, 1922, is estimated at £600,000.

Captain W. BENN: How much of this is met by the German indemnity?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That should be addressed to the Treasury.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it £600,000 altogether or £600,000 in addition to the cost that would be incurred in any case?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: £600,000 altogether—the two combined.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT (NECESSITOUS AREAS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 27.
asked the Prime Minister if he can now announce the result of the sympathetic consideration which he promised the deputation he received from necessitous areas last week he would give their suggestion that the gap period of five weeks waiting for unemployment benefit should be abolished, in order that local authorities should not have thrown upon their rates the additional burden of maintaining those receiving no benefit during these five weeks?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question is being carefully investigated by the various Departments concerned, and I am not yet in a position to give the decision of the Government upon it.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how seriously this question is pressing on industries in the necessitous areas, and that it will strangle trade unless something is done promptly? Can he give an early sympathetic reply.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am fully alive to that. It was represented to me with very great force, as the hon. Member knows, by a deputation quite recently, but it involves a great deal of consideraation of finance.

Mr. SWAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is simply starving our people by instalments?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not really a question of starvation, but it is a question of the burden on the rates.

Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that the local authorities are practically bankrupt, and that in many places they cannot afford to give. relief?

MIDDLESBROUGH.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the total number of persons relieved and the amount paid in relief by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians in the week ending 7th June, and the corresponding figures for the two preceding years and for 1914, or for the nearest similar period for which figures are available in those years; and the amount in the pound of the Middlesbrough Guardians' precepts for the half-years ending Michaelmas 1914, 1920, 1921 and 1922?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am sending the hon. Member the information he desires.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman hand the same information to members of the Cabinet who are considering the needs of necessitous areas?

Sir A. MOND: Certainly; if they require information on the subject I will transmit it to them.

Mr. KILEY: Will it appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Sir A. MOND: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERIAL DEFENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the names of the persons forming the Committee to consider the problem of aerial defence; how long the Committee has been in being; how many sittings have
been held; who is the chairman, and what means are taken to consult the War Office, Admiralty and Air Ministry, and to keep them informed of the conclusions arrived at?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not considered desirable to give the information asked for as to the composition and proceedings of committees conducting secret inquiries. The Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry are represented on the Committee, and its conclusions will be communicated to the Departments concerned in due course.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can my right hon. Friend answer the second part of the question as to how long this Committee has been in being? Is he aware that there is a great deal of public anxiety that money is being wasted on obsolete weapons of war and not on the Air Service?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know there is a feeling of anxiety, and quite reasonably so. I also know that this matter is being pressed forward by the various Departments concerned, but there is some preparation required before they can investigate the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How long has the Committee been functioning?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SIBERIA (JAPANESE TROOPS.)

Mr. HAYDAY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received official confirmation of the report that the Japanese Government has decided to withdraw its troops from the maritime Province of Siberia by the end of October, 1922, and any official information as to the Japanese Government's intentions respecting the Russian half of the Island of Sakhalin, which is now occupied by Japanese troops, and which Japan at the.Washington Conference pledged herself to evacuate as well as the maritime Province?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Japanese Government has not yet announced when it intends to evacuate the northern half of the island of Sakhalin.

TRADE DELEGATION, LONDON.

Colonel NEWMAN: 30.
asked the Prime Minister who is now the head of the Russian trade delegation in London; and has the Government made any representation to him with regard to the large subsidies for the propagation of Communist, policy which are finding their way into this country, and which are a violation of the trading agreement?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monsieur Berzin is Chargé d' Affaires in the absence of Monsieur Krassin. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES TARIFF.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that, the United States tariff, if carried, will practically prohibit the importation of most of the staple manufactured articles of this country, His Majesty's Government will inform the Government of the United States of America that the payment of the interest on our War Debt is impossible unless the American tariff is lowered to such a point as will enable our goods to enter freely into America?

Sir R. HORNE: All relevant considerations will he borne in mind by His Majesty's Government in dealing with the subjects referred to in the question.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that our industries are threatened by this tariff?

Sir R. HORNE: One keeps steadily in mind that the American tariff makes it more difficult for us to pay our debts to America. That is perfectly plain, and I think my Noble Friend will recognise that that is not a consideration one would forget in dealing with the United States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do not our tariffs make it more difficult for the Germans to pay their debts to us?

Sir R. HORNE: The remark of my hon. Friend would be apposite if we had anything like the American tariff in existence in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Sixty-nine per cent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

Mr. WALLACE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a sharp division of opinion exists in commercial circles regarding the benefits or otherwise derived from Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, he will consider the desirability of appointing a Commission to inquire into the results of the working of Part I before deciding to put Part II in operation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): I have been asked to reply. Inasmuch as Part I of the Act deals with an entirely different problem from that with which Part II is intended to deal, it does not appear that an inquiry into the operation of Part I would throw any light on the expediency or otherwise of the proposed order under Part II, which relates to industries of quite a different character. I am unable, therefore, to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. WALLACE: In view of the fact that the object of both parts is to foster British industry, is it not desirable to find out, whether the operations of Part I have been effective or otherwise before putting Part II into operation, virtually for the same purpose?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: That is not a view which I think is a sound view. The problems are quite different. The proper opportunity for my hon. Friend to put that contention forward is when the Order which proposes to apply Part II is brought before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURS LISTS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister of a Dominion is consulted before a person domiciled in that Dominion is recommended for an honour?

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 37 and 33.
asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) when he will give an opportunity for the discussion of the Motion standing on the Paper for the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the present methods of submitting names of persons for honours for the consideration of His Majesty;
(2) whether the lists of names of persons recommended for honours by the heads of the chief Departments are supplemented by other lists drawn up by other members of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are quite ready to discuss the methods of submitting names for honours. There have already been several Debates on the subject in this House in recent years and one discussion in this Parliament. Our difficulty arises out of the state of public business, which is very much in arrears and will involve the prolongation of our sittings well into August with the certainty of an Autumn Session. But the Government are prepared to find facilities for a discussion as soon as the state of public business permits.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will an opportunity be given of discussing the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of 180 Members in all parts of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: That may afford the best opportunity of discussing the question. I will consider it.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Was the Prime Minister of South Africa consulted specifically with regard to the offer of a recent peerage?

The PRIME MINISTER: My lion. Friend is referring to a matter which will be discussed on this Motion.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is there not a simple plain question on the Paper which can be answered, whether the Prime Minister of a Dominion is consulted or not?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of denying here and now that Sir J. Robinson was given a peerage for a financial consideration?

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of when a day will be given or when a question on that point cart be put down with any prospect of being answered?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question put by my Noble Friend and my hon. Friend behind is one of the questions which, I think, will be discussed on that occasion, and the reply will be given by the Government, but if I begin to give an answer to one particular part of the question I should have to go by way of
question and answer into the whole matter, which will be discussed to-day in another place. But I am quite prepared to have the whole matter discussed. With regard to the time, I have not yet had time to consult those who are largely responsible for the arrangement of business. I understand that it will be impossible to have a discussion next week on the subject, but perhaps a question on the subject can be put next week, and then the Leader of the House will be in attendance and give an answer.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will put down a question next week.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it not a fact that the same question has already been put to the Prime Minister of South Africa, and that he says that he made no recommendation and knew nothing about it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that we must not have further questions on the subject now.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 39.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can allocate a day or portion of a day during the present Session to discuss the whole question of the efficient and economical administration of the three fighting services, and the advisability of setting up without further delay a Ministry of Defence, as advocated in the Geddes Report and subsequently laid out on general lines in the Ministry of Defence Creation Bill standing in the names of the Member for East Herts and other hon. Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. In view of the pressure of Parliamentary business, I fear that it is impossible to allocate time for the purposes of this discussion during the present Session. As has already been stated, the question of the creation of a Ministry of Defence is being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN CATTLE EMBARGO.

Mr. W. SHAW: 42.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now state the date upon which the discussion on the Canadian cattle embargo question will be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to be in a position to make an announcement next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FREE RAILWAY TRAVEL—INCOME TAX DEDUCTION).

Mr. SIMM: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the approximate saving annually through free railway travelling for Members having been disallowed, and the estimated loss of revenue by remission of Income Tax on Members' allowance of £400 per annum; and if he can state how many Members, from conscientious or other reasons, have refused the Income Tax remission?

Sir R. HORNE: It is estimated that the cost of free railway travelling for Members between London and their constituencies would amount, under present conditions, and assuming the House to sit for 40 weeks in the year, to about £77,000 per annum. As regards the remainder of the question, it is not the case that there has been a remission of Income Tax on allowances paid to Members of this House but a Member is, equally with ally other taxpayer, entitled to claim a deduction in respect of expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the performance of his duties. Claims of this nature may be made at any time within three years after the end of the year of assessment to which the claim relates, and it is therefore not possible to furnish the particulars for which the hon. Member is asking.

Mr. SIMM: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's notice that this allowance means to poor Members of this House a saving of less than £20 a year and to the rich Members who would not allow them to accept railway passes amounts to nearly £200 a year, and will he take into consideration the heavy expense of long distance travelling to which some Members are subject and revise the whole business in the interests of poorer Members?

Sir R. HORNE: That is the very matter which forms a subject of acute controversy.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPER-TAX.

Viscount CURZON: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of Super-tax in arrear; and whether, in view of the many persons liable to pay and who are unable to meet the tax out of income owing to the fact that it is levied on unproductive property, it is the intention of the Government to compel such persons to borrow or sell out capital to meet the tax?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount of Super-tax in assessment and due for payment., but not paid by the 24th June, 1922, for the United Kingdom (including Southern Ireland) is estimated at £18,000,000; while I am unable to accept the views of my Noble and gallant Friend as to the causes contributing to these arrears, I can assure him that in cases of difficulty action is taken appropriate to the circumstances of the individual case.

Mr. MYERS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate amounts of Super-tax estimated to be due to be paid, but not paid, on 31st March of each of the years from 1919 to 1922, inclusive?

Sir R. HORNE: The approximate amounts of Super-tax estimated to be due to be paid, but not paid, by 31st March were as follows:

United Kingdom.





£


31st March, 1919
…
…
6,500,000


31st March, 1920
…
…
8,000,000


31st March, 1921
…
…
16,000,000


31st March, 1922
…
…
24,000,000

It will be remembered that the scope of the Super-tax was extended, and the rates of tax were increased, by the Finance Act, 1920.

Mr. RENDALL: In how many cases have legal proceedings been taken to compel payment?

Sir R. HORNE: In view of the Debate last night I think it would be entirely improper and inexpedient to give the kind of details that the bon. Member requires.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do the overdue amounts carry interest?

Sir R. HORNE: No, they do not. I am sure the House will recognise that in
the present conditions it would be very inexpedient to be harsh, in many cases, in the exaction of the amount of tax due.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

MAY'S TRUSTEES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the official arbitrator on the 14th September, 1921, and 2nd May, 1922, and reported in the Press, in the case of May's Trustees v. London County Council, where the audited profits on a farm of 400 acres were proved at £39 per acre; whether he is aware that Income Tax, Schedule B, was paid on an assessment of about £2 an acre, and that the loss to the Exchequer since 1913, owing to the farmer in question being assessed under Schedule B, has amounted to £18,000; and whether he will state, for each year since September, 1913, the assessment under Schedule B, the actual profits, the amount of Income Tax paid under Schedule B, and the amount which would have been payable as Income Tax, Schedule D, and Super-tax, if such taxes had been chargeable in respect of the farm in question?

Sir R. HORNE: I had not previously seen any report of the proceedings to which the hon. Member refers. As he is doubtless aware, the Board of Inland Revenue are precluded from furnishing particulars regarding the affairs of individual taxpayers, and I am therefore unable to give the information for which he is asking.

GERMANY.

Mr. WISE: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the German Republic collected in Income Tax in 1920 and 1921?

Sir R. HORNE: For Income Tax proper the yield was 9,593 millions of paper marks in the year ended 31st March, 1921, and 28,146 millions in the year ended 31st March, 1922. For all taxes on income the figures are 11,025 millions and 31,853 millions respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (REBATE).

Mr. WISE: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount rebated since 1st April, 1922, of Excess Profits Duty?

Sir R. HORNE: The amount of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) repaid in Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the 1st April, 1922, to the 24th June, 1922, inclusive, is £16,960,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 53.
asked the Home Secretary what number of women patrols have been disbanded in the Metropolitan area; and what number of such patrols are still retained?

Mr. SHORTT: The authorised establishment of women patrols was 113; the present strength is 56.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS (IMPORTATION).

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 54.
asked the Home Secretary what steps, if any, are taken to ascertain whether persons entering this country are or are not carrying firearms; and whether firearms can enter this country by post?

Mr. SHORTT: Such steps with regard to persons entering this country from overseas are taken in the course of the Customs examination. Packages sent from overseas by parcels post are examined by the Customs. Firearms sent in other post packages from overseas, without licence, are detained and handed to the Customs for action. If my hon. Friend means to refer to Ireland, I would refer him to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford on the 26th instant. All regulations as to removals of firearms apply to removals by post.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Are any steps being taken to search people coming from Ireland, in view of the fact that people going to Ireland are searched?

Mr. SHORTT: In eases of suspicion there would be search in exactly the same way.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Why should not people coming in be searched in exactly the same way as those going to Ireland?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. ALLEN: Can Members of Parliament be exempt from that?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I draw attention to the question on the Paper? I ask what steps are taken to ascertain whether persons entering this country are or are not carrying firearms?

Mr. SHORTT: That is the question I have answered. It is done by the Customs. They search the luggage and anything that would be likely to contain firearms.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: Are persons searched?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, if the Customs suspect that they may have arms hidden.

Viscount CURZON: is there any difference of procedure adopted in the case of people going out of the country compared with those coming into the country?

Mr. SHORTT: There may be a difference in the amount, because the firearms being taken out are far more than those coming in. The principle is the same.

Viscount CURZON: Do you always search people coming into this country, or only when you have reason to suspect them?

Mr. SHORTT: When we have reason to suspect them. We do not search every one.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any difference in practice in the case of people coming from Ireland compared with those coming from foreign countries?

Mr. SHORTT: No, the practice is the same. If there is any suspicion of their having arms, they are searched.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: On what would that suspicion be based?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGITIMATION BY MARRIAGE.

Captain BOWYER: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will name a date for the promised introduction of the Bill dealing with legitimation by subsequent marriage?

Mr. SHORTT: I regret I am not yet in a position give a date, but I hope the Bill will not be long delayed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AND LOCAL FINANCE.

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 57.
asked the Minister of Health how many years have elapsed since relations between the Imperial and local exchequers were last adjusted by legislation?

Sir A. MOND: The relations between the Imeprial and local exchequers are frequently being adjusted. The last general adjustment was effected by the Local Government Act, 1888. Since then, however, many of the grants have been revised, and additional grants have; been provided for both by legislation and by direct Votes by Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL SCHOOLS GRANT.

Mr. L. MALONE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the protest issued by the local education authorities regarding circular 1,245, announcing the restriction of the Treasury grant for the coming year towards the education of the blind, deaf, physically defective, and epileptic children to the amount paid in the current year; whether it is the duty of the education authorities to make provision for these children; whether he is aware that there are large numbers of defective children for whom no provision has yet been made; and whether, in view of the importance of this matter to the future of the race, he will reconsider his decision to restrict the provision of education for these afflicted children?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend is glad to say that it has been found possible to remove, in nearly every case, the restriction on the number of defective children who may be sent to existing special schools by individual local education authorities. A circular on the subject will be issued to authorities during the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL DELIVERIES, LONDON.

Colonel NEWMAN: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that complaints are being made by business firms and residents in the northern
suburban area that packets with a halfpenny stamp, even if posted before 3.30 p.m., are not delivered, as they should be, the same evening or early next morning; and that those who complain are informed that to ensure punctual delivery they had better put on an additiinal halfpenny stamp; and will he have this alleged delay investigated?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER -GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I ant having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. and gallant Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S DRIFTER "BLUE SKY" (LOSS).

Mr. LANE-FOX: 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether His Majesty's Drifter "Blue Sky" left, Portsmouth on 12th June; whether she was last sighted off Beachy Head on the lath at 12.15 p.m.; what steps were taken to ascertain here whereabouts after that; and whether her loss was published in the newspapers before the relatives of the officers and men on board had been notified?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The "Blue Sky" should normally have reached Invergordon about the 17th June in pursuance of orders given to her by the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet. Her instructions were to report her position at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily, and she was last heard calling Sheerness Wireless Telegraph Station at 17.53 on the 13th June, but no actual message was received, as that station does not receive messages on the wave length used by naval drifters. I may add that many vessels and drifters were proceeding north at the time.
The Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet, reported at 8 p.m. on the 17th June that the vessel had not arrived, and at his request inquiries were made immediately, and at 10 am. on the 18th June the Commander-in-Chief, More, reported that wreckage was coming ashore at Herne Bay and Margate and that the Duty Destroyer was being sent out to search. Further inquiries elicited the information that on the night of the
13th June nothing was heard or seen by Foreness Signal Station, Kentish Knock Light Vessel or North Goodwin Light Vessel which could throw any light on the disappearance of the "Blue Sky."
These facts were communicated to the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet, who at 11.58 p.m. on the 18th June reported that he was informing the next-of-kin of the officers and men who had been embarked that it was feared that the vessel was lost. I am not aware at what times the various relatives concerned received the Commander-in-Chief's telegrams. The toss of the "Blue Sky" appeared in the evening newspapers of Monday, the 19th June, and it was anticipated that all the next-of-kin of those who had lost their lives would have been informed before this time.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Was not the interval between the 13th and 17th rather long before inquiries were started, and is there any reason to know how this accident occurred?

Mr. AMERY: As to the last part of the question, we are still making inquiries. So far, there is nothing at all to throw any light on the disappearance of this vessel. A large number of drifters and trawlers were proceeding north all the time, and the mere cessation of wireless reports for two days would not, in the ordinary course, give reason for anxiety in reasonably calm weather. But instructions have been given that in future drifters are to go in pairs.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Is it not a fact that the interval between the 13th and 17th was unduly long?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRICES (REDUCTION).

Mr. LAWSON: 64.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the recent reduction in coal prices in London will have any effect upon miners' wages; and what part of this reduction, if any, is borne by the London coal merchants?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): I am informed by the Coal Merchants' Federation that this reduction was made on account of the stagnation of trade., in the hope of attracting business, and that it has been accompanied by a drop of about 7s. in the pithead price at many collieries. On the relationship be-
tween prices and wages, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Morpeth.

Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give an explanation of the fall of 9s. in the retail price of coal in London, similar to that which he gave a fortnight before this fall, explaining exactly what is going to be the effect upon the coal merchants themselves, seeing that they said a few days before this that they were simply getting 5d. per ton profit off their sales? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an explanation, because there is a feeling in the country that there has been criminal exploitation.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Of course, I am dependent on the Coal Merchants' Federation for any figures they are good enough to supply to me; I have no power to compel them. I think it is tolerably clear if the hon. Member will look at the analysis which I gave of the reports about a month ago, and read my answer to this question, that the probability is the merchants are standing the loss themselves as regards the difference between the two prices.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the figures given by the London coal merchants that they were only making 5d. per ton profit before, in spite of the fact that they have now reduced the price by 9s. per ton?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: I have no reason to suppose they are making any profit now. It is quite possible—and probable—they are making a loss.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Prime Minister say whether the Mines Department cannot be empowered to get these figures, and, if not, should it not be done away with in the interests of economy?

Mr. SPEAKER: That would involve legislation, and the question should be put down on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CATTERICK AERODROME.

Mr. LAWSON: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he
has made any further inquiries into the condition of Catterick aerodrome; whether he is aware that many huts are going to ruin; that brick and cement hangars remain in an unfinished state and are rotting; and that iron framework, designed for windows, is being used to fill up gaps in hedges; whether, in view of the fact that these huts and buildings are occupying some of the best pre-War farm land, he will have inquiries made as to the possibility of restoring the land to agriculture; and whether the proposal, announced on the 11th April, that the buildings were to be handed over to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission at an early date, has been carried out?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 11th April last to the hon. Member for West Nottingham. In regard to the last part of the question, it is hoped that the transfer of the aerodrome to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission will be effected shortly.

BOOT CONTRACTS.

Sir W. HOWELL DAVIES: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of pairs of boots with chrome uppers, the number of pairs of boots with British vegetable-tanned uppers, and the number of pairs of boots with Indian vegetable-tanned uppers in the last series of contracts placed for ankle boots for the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The last series of contracts was for the purchase of 37,500 pairs of boots. The specification under which the contracts were made permitted the use, in the manufacture of the uppers, of any of the three types of leather mentioned by my hon. Friend. The contract is not yet quite completed, but the boots received up to date have uppers of vegetable-tanned leather, tanned in India and curried in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (RUSSIAN TROOPS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a plot was recently discovered by the Bulgarian Government whereby the refugee Russian troops under General
Wrangel were to be used in a revolution against the Bulgarian Government; whether these troops are now being disarmed; whether the arms taken from Wrangel's troops are being handed over to the Allied Commission; and how are those arms being disposed of?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Bulgarian Government recently arrested several hundred Russian officers in Bulgaria, and expelled them from the country, but judicial proceedings to establish their guilt have not yet taken place. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. In regard to the last part of this question, the share handed over to His Majesty's Government is being destroyed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is being done by the other officers of the Allied Commission?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot answer on behalf of foreign governments.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this a matter which very much concerns us, as if they are handed over by other Allied officers to other countries, there may be continuous trouble, which may injure this country?

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is there a word of truth in the suggestion that General Wrangel or his officers had anything to do with this question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not accepting the language of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in describing the cause of these officers being expelled from Bulgaria.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has it not been admitted that these officers—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a complete answer to his question. Now he wants to give his own opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. JOHN: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the change in economic conditions which has come about since the percentage increase of rent was fixed under the Rent Restrictions Acts have greatly increased the financial difficulties of the middle and
working classes; and whether he will immediately introduce legislation for the purpose of materially reducing the percentage by which rents can be increased over those of pre-War?

Sir A. MOND: I will consider the point raised by the hon. Member, but I cannot give any undertaking as to the introduction of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY FARES (WORKMEN).

Mr. FINNEY: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to complaints respecting increased fares to miners and other workers who travel by train to and from the place of their employment, and that in some cases it is alleged the increase is considerably over 100 per cent. as compared with previous rates; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made and issue a statement showing the distance travelled and rate charged per person per day, per week, or longer period, as the case may be, in July, 1914, and at the present time on branch and main lines in North and South Staffordshire, and in Warwickshire, with a view to a more satisfactory arrangement of fares for workmen's trains referred to?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): My attention has been drawn to certain complaints of this nature. Workmen's fares were increased as from 1st September, 1920, and on the average the fares now in operation throughout Great. Britain show an increase of 85 per cent. over those in operation in August, 1920. Increases were limited by a decision of the Government to a maximum of 2s. per week. If the hon. Member desires more detailed particulars and will inform me what specific points he has in mind, I will have further enquiries made. I would remind him that under Sections 60 and 78 of the Railways Act, 1921, representations can be made to the Rates Tribunal for a reduction in fares.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (ALLEGED BRIGANDAGE).

Mr. ERSKINE: (by Private Notice)
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a number of
English employés of the Cortez Oil Company, in Mexico, have been captured by brigands, and if he can give any information to the House on the subject.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have not yet received any confirmation of the reports on this subject which have appeared in the Press. A telegram of inquiry has been sent to His Majesty's representative at Mexico City, and I will inform the hon. Member as soon as possible of the reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. WALSH: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister if he can communicate to the House the course of business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very necessary that we should make as much progress as possible with Bills which are down on the Paper for Second Reading and other stages, so that these Bills may be sent either to Committees upstairs as soon as possible, or to another place for consideration, so to avoid congestion towards the end of July. I therefore hope the House will assist as much as possible next week in dealing with a fairly large number of Measures, but few of which, I think, can be termed controversial.
On Monday, we shall take the Second Reading of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill—I think there is very good reason to believe it will be non-controversial—and the Report stages of the National Health Insurance Bill, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Payment of Calls) Bill, the Harbours. Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill, the Indian High Courts Bill [Lords],the Sale of Tea Bill, and, if time permit, other minor Orders on the Paper.
On Tuesday, we shall take Supply, Colonial Office Vote.
On Wednesday, we shall take the Second Readings of the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Allotments (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Telegraph (Money) Bill, the Government of Northern Ireland (Loan Guarantee) Bill, the Merchandise Marks Bill [Lords], and the Public Works Loans Bill. They are all non-controversial.
On Thursday, we shall take Supply, Department of Mines Vote, Report stage.
On Friday, we shall take the Third Readings of Bills dealt with on Monday and other minor Orders, including the Second Readings of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill and the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill [Lords].

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, as the Government of Northern Ireland (Loan Guarantee) Bill does affect money and expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is put down early, and not taken in the small hours of the morning, and that any other financial business shall be taken first?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand it has been discussed very fully on the Financial Resolution in the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we have a guarantee that this Bill will be taken at a reasonable hour and these non-controversial Bills taken later?

The PRIME MINISTER: I trust the House will give the Government every facility in carrying this Bill, because we want to assist in the restoration of order throughout the country.

Captain W. BENN: Is it proposed to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule on any of those dates?

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN ACT (1903) AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

INFANTICIDE BILL (CHANGED FROM "CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL").

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for enabling effect to be given to two Treaties signed at Washington on behalf of His Majesty and certain other Powers." [Treaties of Washington Bill [Lords.]

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART-MENTS ESTIMATES, 1922–23.

Orders of the Day — CLASS II.

HOME OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £198,956, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries; and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices." —[NOTE: £170,000 has been voted on account.]

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move "That Item A.1 (Salaries, Wages, and Allouances) be reduced by £100, in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State.'
This occasion provides us with an opportunity of bringing up once more the question of the maintenance of the Women Police Patrol. There, is a determination in the country among all classes that these policewomen must be retained, if possible. The churches, the various organisations, the medical societies all feel that it would be very much to the detriment of the public if they were disbanded. I should like to deal with the Home Secretary's statement that the work these women patrols do is welfare work, and not police work. Then there is the result that has already been felt in this short time by the reduction of this force. The Home Secretary repeatedly said that this economy must be effected because of the Geddes Report. In previous Debates two points stand out—first of all, the Home Secretary's assertion that the work they do is welfare work and not police work, and, secondly, that economy would be secured if they were all disbanded. The Geddes Report said that the work they do should not be charged to the police fund, because it is welfare work. Their information was very scanty, and very inadequate; in fact, they depended almost entirely on the Home
Secretary for their information and guidance. This afternoon we hope to convince the Home Secretary that the work is police work, and not altogether welfare work. The official instructions which the women police have when they are engaged in the force, are that they are to deal with women and children who, are ill, injured, destitute, homeless, victims of assault or in danger of drifting: to an immoral life. These may be welfare subjects, but it is very evident that-very important training is necessary for this work to be done properly. The Home Secretary, on the 10th May, said that the money taken from the Police Fund is devoted, strictly speaking, to the protection of property, life and limb. I hold that the duty of protecting the lives of women in the various ways that I have mentioned are indeed police work. The Home Secretary must admit that his suggestion that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church and other organisations can carry on this work as adequately as the women police, does not answer the purpose.
Even if these questions are to be considered as welfare work, the official instructions go further than that. They say that the women patrols may be employed in detecting offences in the white slave traffic and other offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and in disorderly houses, and they have done a very great deal of good work in connection with alien cafés, particularly where there are Chinese and black men. The women police have regularly visited these places, with the result that white girls have been much less in evidence; in fact, in one café the notice was put up, "No white girls admitted." Then they can enter betting and gambling houses, visit licensed premises, visit night clubs attended by both sexes, carry out the Vagrancy Acts in the matter of fortune-telling, detect pickpockets, and assist in criminal investigations, in which they have done good work in the past, with regard to the drug cocaine. They can go where no man has any access, and recently they have secured six people who had been carrying on traffic in cocaine, which traffic, as the Committee knows, is generally carried on underground, and, in this particular case, in a place where a man had no access, and which otherwise could not have been
revealed. The League of Nations is at present grappling with this great curse, and, I think, in itself it is a justification for the existence of the women patrols that they should help the League of Nations to try to stamp out this traffic. The League of Nations needs the help of all Governments, and it is necessary that our Government should maintain these women police, if for nothing else.
Another duty in which these women may be employed is in taking statements in cases of alleged criminal assaults on women and children. This is not welfare work, but highly-skilled police work. At first seven women and eight sergeants were specially appointed for this work, but they were far too few. The number is to be reduced from 15 to four, which means that each person who takes these statements will have charge of 40 police stations. It is very evident that the work cannot be done in an accurate or a proper manner, because sometimes there is a rush of work and sometimes there is very little work. The question of taking these statements is a very delicate matter, which certainly ought to be done by a woman, and not by a man. The details are often obscure. A child is very impressionable, and questioning has to be done in a very careful and delicate manner. The women patrols have, up to the present, worked in very close contact with the London County Council. When a case of this kind has been brought up, they have taken up the case as after-care work, and they have passed it on to the organisations. The child has been visited at home; its parents have been talked to, and, if possible, a holiday home has been provided for the child. Another thing that women police patrols may do is to assist in conveying women and children to and from hospitals, workhouses, and police stations. They may remove the women to remand homes, the children to reformatory schools, and the inebriates to inebriate homes. Another thing that they do is to help watch in hospital the patients who have attempted suicide.
Surely these 11 points are not merely welfare work. Some of them are distinctly bordering on the lines of criminal offences, and, if they are criminal offences, surely they can be put under the head of police work. A woman in ordinary clothes has no authority in the street,
and it is a very difficult thing for her to speak, or try to correct, any misdemeanour in the street if she is not wearing uniform. It is rather an interesting point that nearly all the women patrols who have been dismissed have got employment in London in the big shops, because they are so excellent, and so capable in the matter of detective work. The result of the reduction of this force in these two months has been very serious. The open spaces and parks have been made considerably worse. Children going to and from school are very ill-protected, and there have been very serious happenings. The people living in the district of one park which these women patrolled have made application, and have secured volunteers to take duty in the park, because the conditions there were so much worse after the women patrols were removed. I have before me figures comparing the month of April, 1921, when the patrol was in full force, and the month of April, 1922, when some of the police had been disbanded, In April, 1921, there were 312 cautions for indecency; in April, 1922, there were only 108. In April, 1921, 1,961 girls were cautioned for loitering, and in April, 1922, only 1,066. For soliciting, there were 328 cautions in April last year, as against only 31 this year. For riotous behaviour, there were 538 in April last year and only 301 in April this year.
4.0 P.M.
There were in April, 1921, 583 cautions for loitering in cafés, and in April this year there were only 133. That is, in one month in 1921 there were 3,813 cautions against 1,667 in April this year. All that goes to show that the women patrols did a tremendous amount of work in April last year which was not done in April this year because they were disbanded. The Home Secretary urges the economy which will he effected if this reduction in the women police be made. I do not think that the value of the work performed by the women police can he measured in pounds, shillings and pence. It is much better to get hold of potential criminals young rather than when they have become habitual criminals. The hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), in an excellent speech, referred to the cost of prosecuting and maintaining prisoners. We have it on very good authority that one patient suffering from venereal disease costs the
nation £80 a year, and that 33⅓ per cent. of the illnesses in our hospitals are caused by that disease. Therefore, there is a tremendous cost to the hospitals. One conviction for soliciting costs between £30 and £40, and, if only the women patrols had the power of arrest, a great deal of economy would certainly be effected. The women patrols might quite easily have that power of arrest, act as both gaolers and matrons, and travel with prisoners. They might thus relieve the male force and allow them to take other duties in other parts of the Metropolis. The conclusion to be drawn from these statements is that the official duties of the women patrols are not welfare work but police work. The Geddes Committee did not have sufficient evidence before them, and the conclusion of that Committee is in direct conflict with the conclusion of the Home Office Committee on the employment of women on police duties. That Committee reported that there was urgent need for the establishment of these women patrols. Moreover, the preventive work lessens expenditure. It. is not to be measured by pounds, shillings and pence. It cannot be counted in cash, but it is of vital importance to the State as making for the health and morality of the nation.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I beg to support the Amendment.
I am quite free to confess that the subject which has been brought under discussion is one to which I have only very recently given anything like serious attention. I am afraid that there are a good many Members who are in the same position that I was in until recently, but I believe that if they will study, for-example, the minutes of evidence given before the Committee presided over by my hon. and gallant Friend the present Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Baird) in 1921, they will see that this matter really deserves the serious attention of this Committee. I understand that the reduction or abolition of this body of police is a contribution by the right hon. Gentleman to the great national economy campaign, and that it is a sign of his reverence for the Geddes axe. The first thing to notice is exactly how much we shall gain by the policy which he has adopted. I believe that the total amount of saving which the nation can make by the
abolition of this body of police is somewhere about £20,000. Therefore, from the point of view of economy alone, let us recognise at the outset that it is a very trifling matter. I am not by any means attempting to urge that in these days even the most trifling reduction is not worth making if it can be made without any real sacrifice of national efficiency; but I am prepared to maintain, and I think the Committee will take the same view, that this particular policy, even from the point of view of pounds, shillings, and pence, will not be economy at all, but, as my hon. Friend has shown, will result in increased expenditure, perhaps not directly, but certainly indirectly, and that, apart altogether from the strictly economical point of view, the policy is a very reactionary one and is certainly a retrograde step from the point of view of efficient administration in the area of the police.
I would like just to read one particular passage from the evidence given before the Committee to which I have referred, because, as a. general statement, it is very valuable. I am reading from the evidence of Sergeant Johnson, who was authorised to speak on behalf of the Joint Central Committee of the Police Federation of England and Wales. He said that in their opinion the employment of women in the performance of police duties, within limits, would be of assistance to the regular police, and would also be in the public interest. Then he goes on to give a very considerable list of police functions which, speaking as an experienced police officer, he thought could be efficiently performed by women police. That is a very valuable contribution to the controversy, if it be a controversy, as to whether these duties can be and ought to be performed by women. Perhaps of equal importance—some may think of more importance—is the evidence of Sir Nevil Macready, who distinctly stated that in his opinion the women police, instead of being abolished as now proposed, should have much greater authority, and should, as my hon. Friend advocated, have the power of arrest, which, of course, they have not had hitherto. There is one mistake which is very commonly made with regard to these duties performed by women police. A great many people—I do not know whether inside this House, but certainly outside it—when they hear the sort of
work that the women police have done and might be asked to do, say, "That is all very well, but that is work that ought to be done by social workers, religious workers, philanthropic workers, and so on; it is not work that ought to be done by the police." My hon. Friend has very satisfactorily shown that that really is a very great mistake. A great many of these duties can be much more efficiently performed by people who have definite authority. The mere fact that they wear uniform does give these women a prestige and an authority to act in very many cases. First of all, it enables them to take action that they could not take without it, and, perhaps still more important, it confers upon them a prestige which is recognised by the quasi criminal class, or at all events that class which by opportune action may be prevented from falling into the criminal class.
There is another very natural prejudice, and one with which I have often sympathised. It is the prejudice which perhaps many hon. Members feel that so far as possible we should keep women uncontaminated from contact with the under-world of crime or with that part of society which is always on the brink of crime, and especially a very unpleasant class of crime, and that it is repugnant to our ideas that the administration of the law in these respects should not be kept out of the hands of women. At the same time, if you are convinced that women are prepared to undertake this work without any moral loss to themselves, that they have the courage and determination to take up the work, and that they can do it in some respects very much better than men, then I think that prejudice ought to he regarded as obsolete. The War did in many respects sweep away a great many prejudices with regard to the work that women could or ought to do. We ought to recognise that the time has come when we should be willing to accept the services of women for the proper administration of the police law in the metropolis.
There is one duty which it appears to me women not only do better than men but can alone undertake. We have heard a great deal recently of the great menace to society from the traffic in cocaine. There have been most heartrending cases brought out in the Press, and those of us who have given any attention
to it must have wondered if it be possible to cope with the matter at all. The ease with which this deadly drug can be transferred from one person to another, the terrible lure which it seems to have for certain people, and the disastrous effects that it has, make it a subject extremely difficult to deal with, and yet it is one with which everybody must feel there is an imperative necessity to deal if possible. Some of us heard some information within the precincts of this House yesterday from very experienced women on this point. We were told, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is true, that part of the cocaine traffic is carried on in places like public lavatories where it is the easiest possible thing for one of these women who spread the sale of cocaine to meet some other woman and pass a small packet to her. Of course these are places into which a male constable cannot go and into which we should not give him power to go. There must be many other places, perhaps not so entirely closed to men, such as waiting rooms where it is the habit for women to congregate and where it is not the habit of men to go and where we do not want men to go. That is just an aspect of police work where it seems to me that we can and ought at present to make use of the services of women, and, if we refuse to do so for the sake of some trifling economy or any other reason, we shall lose an opportunity which may not recur of dealing with this very dangerous development in modern society.
Then there is a duty to which. I think, my hon. Friend opposite has already referred, the duty of the interrogation of small children when accusations are made against men of criminal assault. That is a matter about which there was a good deal of evidence given by very experienced administrators before this Committee, and in which witness after witness said there were cases where it was almost imperatively necessary to have women to do the work; cases where small girls have to be interrogated in the most intimate manner, and cross examined, and where it was necessary in the administration of justice to make sure that false accusations were not made, and that accusations were fully substantiated. In eases of this sort, it is absolutely necessary that the most minute circumstances in connection with the charge brought against a man must be
given by the only witness capable of giving it, and, therefore, the little child must be cross-examined in order to know what evidence she is prepared to give. That sort of preliminary investigation ought not to be undertaken, in the case of a child of tender years, by a male constable, but, by a duly-authorised and qualified woman police-officer. I should have thought that was perfectly obvious. Sir Nevil Macready, in his evidence, tells us of terrible things—if they are true—and we must take it on his statement. For example, he says that especially in the East End of London there are a terrible number of cases of incest; cases of fathers violating daughters of eight or nine years of age. It is very necessary that women should be employed to soothe these children and to ascertain from them, without destroying their moral sense, exactly what has happened. I really should have thought this sort of case had only got to be mentioned in the House of Commons, substantiated as it is by the responsible evidence given before this Committee, to persuade the House that even if the economy suggested were much larger than it is, it would not sanction any such economy being made at such a price. I believe that before the right hon. Gentleman determined upon this reduction there were only seven women officers employed on this particular sort of work, which requires a very careful training and is most expert work. These have been reduced to four. I believe that, if the right hon. Gentleman had come to this House and explained to the House the sort of work these women are doing, he would have had the ready sanction of the Committee, not to reduce the number from seven to four, but to increase the number from seven to a very much larger number, which, according to Sir Nevil Macready, are really necessary in order to carry out the work effectively.
There is another aspect to which some of the experienced ladies who addressed us yesterday referred. The point certainly had not occurred to me before. I think it deserves the very careful consideration of the Committee. The country has heard a great deal recently about the ravages caused by venereal disease. These ladies, who have themselves been engaged in this police work, assured the Members who were present
of this: that when prostitutes were arrested by women police that in a very large number of cases those who were diseased would communicate to the women police the fact that they were diseased, as they have done in many cases, ask for assistance, inquire where there is a clinic to which they can go, and what steps they can take in order to get medical treatment. It is quite certain that if these women were arrested, either for disorderly conduct or for any other reason by a male constable, that they would simply go to prison or the police court, as the case might be, and they would not make the disclosure to the male officer as they would to the woman police officer. No one, I think, who has at all followed the medical discussion which has been going on on this matter, and realises the vital necessity of the earliest possible treatment for these terrible diseases, can fail to see the tremendous advantage derived from that fact alone. If by the employment of these police women you get a number of these unfortunate contaminated women to submit to medical treatment earlier than they would have done, it is all to the good, and perhaps otherwise would not have done at all. It is quite obvious that this is not work that can be undertaken by any voluntary organisation. It is only when a woman is actually taken, that is arrested by one in authority, that it can be done. She need not even necessarily be arrested, because there are many cases where women are walking about the streets, where a woman police officer can go and give salutary advice, and so effective work is done. The officers can make the excuse of telling these people to "move on," and get into conversation with them, and render assistance and advice such as would be impossible for a man to do, and, indeed, be very objectionable for a man to attempt to do.
We were told—and I have no doubt it is true—that these women police have found by experience not only that they can do the work, but that in very many cases, by keeping their eyes open as they go about, they can, by tactful intervention at the right moment, be the means of preventing some young girl from embarking upon a career of vice. It may be said—and I daresay there are people here will say it—that this is not police work. They may say it is preventive or rescue work, and, therefore, it should
not be done by the police. That is not a true objection. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to a very striking statement made by Mr. Simpson, an Assistant Secretary at the Home Office, in his evidence before this Committee. He was asked for a definition of the functions of a constable. He gave what I should certainly be ready to accept as the true functions of a police-constable in a civilised country like ours. It is this:
His essential function is to help other people to lead a quiet, orderly, and peaceful life.
That is not an old-fashioned view of the duties of the police force. I daresay the old-fashioned view of the policeman was that his sole function was to arrest the criminal, take him handcuffed off to the police court, and see that he was properly punished. This other is the modern, and, I think, a very humane view of what the constable ought to do to help other people to lead a quiet, orderly, and peaceful life. If this be true surely it does become an essential part of the constable's duty—if he or she can do it—to step in at the right moment when they see a young girl walking the streets and just about to embark upon a career of vice—she has not done so yet—and so prevent her. Will anybody say that any such function as that does not come within the duty of the constable? It is because the woman constable can do that, whereas the man constable could not, and ought not to do it, that I feel very strongly we ought not to part with this very valuable adjunct of police administration.
Young men, I say, ought not to do it. I think we ought to have some regard in this matter for the male side of the picture. Anyone who knows anything about the Metropolitan police knows there are a very large number of splendid young fellows, quite young men, who have been enlisted in that force. A good many of them come from country districts, and they have had very little experience of metropolitan life before. We should hesitate to put any duties of this kind in the way of these young men that we can avoid—of mixing them up with these young girls in the streets and requiring them either to arrest them, still less to enter into conversation with them to find out their circumstances. In my opinion
good might be done by authorised women who are accustomed to work of that sort. It is obvious that it is very objectionable indeed that that sort of work should be, wherever it can be avoided, committed into the hands of young men.
A few moments ago I was referring to the regulations that have been made about venereal disease. At the meeting we had yesterday we had the advantage of not merely listening to some of the women who have had experience, but there was a medical man present who has had an immense amount of experience with regard to this question of venereal disease; I refer to Dr. Campbell Maclure. He told us—I have heard the same thing from other sources—that the greatest dissemination of this disease came, not from what is called the common prostitute, but from the elms which he designated as the "casual sinner." He told us that from some points of view the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds might be saved to this country in the year, and that we could largely reduce venereal disease and its direct and indirect consequences. I think he said something like 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the various diseases which are treated in our hospitals could be traced directly—I think he said—to the incidence of venereal disease, and, therefore, anything which would largely reduce it—apart altogether from other aspects of it—which, God knows, are serious enough—would be well worth doing from the point of view of national economy alone. He declared that something like 50 per cent. of the venereal disease prevalent in London could be prevented if these casual sinners could be increasingly got at by the women police in a way they have been doing on a small scale in the past.
If that is really true—and I think we are bound to take it as being at all events probably true—for there is no evidence on the other side—if this really is the case, surely we ought to hesitate before we allow the Home Office at this time of day, for the sake of a small economy to do this. We all recognise the necessity for economy and sympathise with this branch of the administration. We all admit this has been really an experiment. It has been done on a small scale hitherto. But it is an experiment, so far as it has gone, which has
justified itself ten times over. I do say, having made that experiment, it really would be absolutely deplorable if, for the sake of a couple of thousand pounds, we were to throw the whole thing back, and throw away all the good that has been done, and the vista of infinitely greater good that lies before us, if a larger and increasingly larger number of these special women can be trained for this work. But naturally they must be carefully selected and will have to be carefully trained. It will take some time. It cannot be done in a moment. If now, even for a year or two, this thing is closed down in the interests of economy, it will make it a much longer job to get a really large body of highly qualified and trained women, and it would delay the whole thing. I think that from that point of view also that the Committee should hesitate before they sanction this proposal. First of all, I urge upon the Home Secretary that he should reconsider his decision in this matter because we all know how difficult it is if he refuses to accept an Amendment of this sort to force him to do so against his will. We may go into the Division Lobby, and have a large or a small minority, but we know that if the right hon. Gentleman chooses he can defeat us. I appeal to him first that he should not put us to the necessity of going into the Division Lobby against him, but if he is adamant on that point I hope as many hon. Members as possible will show their disapproval of the deplorable policy involved in the right hon. Gentleman's refusal, and will go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: The Mover and Supporter of this Amendment have gone very closely into the details of the question which deals with the retention of the women police. Therefore I do not propose to follow them in great detail on this particular aspect of the economy which has been introduced in the police force. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) called it the deplorable policy of the Home Office in making an economy in connection with a branch of the Service which is doing and has done very good and effective work. I am afraid that the administration of the police generally has been unfortunate in the hands of the Home Office. I do not especially refer to the present Chief Secretary, but for the last few years the policy adopted by the Home Office has not tended to give any confi-
dente to the men, and without confidence you cannot expect efficiency or economy. We had enough trouble in 1918 and 1919 to make us hesitate before we take any drastic action against the best interests of the police force itself. The least one can say in reference to the present suggestion is that we hope, if it is to be carried out and the economies suggested are to be effected, it will only be of s, purely temporary nature and only for the year.
What has happened? We are now faced with drastic retrenchment in every branch of the police forces of the country. The Home Office could not carry out these economies themselves, and a wonderful Committee, the Geddes Committee, was appointed to deal with a subject which ought to have been dealt with by the Department itself, without reference to any outside body. One would imagine that no recommendations to secure economy whatever had been previously made in connection with the police force. I wish to point out, however, that in 1919 the Desborough Committee, of which I was a member, put forward a large number of recommendations which are now made by this wonderful Geddes Committee, and none of them have been carried out by the Home Office. In the past, public Departments have paid little or scant attention to the recommendations made by Committees appointed by this House, after looking carefully and thoroughly into these matters. If you are only going to act after investigations by some outside body, you might as well do away with your system of appointing Committees. If the recommendations which had previously been made to the Home Office had been carried out, there would have been no necessity whatever for doing away with the women police, or making other economies in the police force itself.
In the Desborough Report we recommended the Home Office to keep the police for police duties, and not to employ them on civilian work. That in itself would, I think, have been a great economy in the police force. Another recommendation was that we should merge the smaller forces in the larger forces, but nothing has been clone in that direction. We recommended that when a chief constable dies or retires, either in England or Scotland, the Home Office should suggest that that branch should be merged into the county force. I would like to give one or two instances.
In my own county of Berkshire, we have three separate police forces—three chief constables and three different sets of offices—all of whose work could be perfectly well done by the county police force. If you look through the list of police forces in this country, you would find that many anomalies exist. I know one force consisting of nine men, of whom one is the chief constable, one an inspector, and one a sergeant, leaving the remainder to constitute the constables of that force.
In some of these lists I find that in five police forces the total number is 50 men, five being chief constables, with five senior officers to superintend. This kind of thing is had for the men, it is wasteful and extravagant, and I believe that if the Home Office had chosen to take a fairly strong step, by insisting upon these smaller forces being merged into a larger one, a very large saving of money would have followed. In this matter the Home Office practically did nothing until they were driven into a corner, and then they used an outside Committee as a cloak to impose drastic reductions and economies. The Home Secretary may reply that he has no power in this matter, but that is hardly correct. This House provides half the money for the pay of the police forces of the country, and, therefore, we have a right to insist on necessary reforms. I do not believe that if this matter were brought before the House hon. Members would hesitate to support the Home Secretary in action of that sort. I appeal to the Home Secretary to consider the carrying out of the recommendations which have already been submitted to him, if they be at all possible.
It is very difficult to fix the amount likely to be saved by any of these suggested economies, but I believe that a large amount would have been saved had the recommendations already made been put into force. I think the way in which the police forces of the country have been treated is hardly worthy of the Government. The Home Secretary may say that the approval of the police was given to the reductions through the Joint Central Committee, but I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman really thinks it fair to the Committee to throw the whole responsibility on them. I do not think that is
treating the police in the way in which they ought to be treated. Knowing the policeman as we all do—with his education, his keenness and loyalty—I am sure he would be the last man in the world, if called upon to join in any general plan of economy, to have held out. But in the present case, without asking him, or carrying out recommendations which have been put forward, he has suddenly been called on, through the Joint Central Committee, to shoulder the enormous economies which are now proposed.
What do the Government intend to do? They resort at once to the simple method of reducing the wages of the members of the force. The pay of the police force was settled definitely in 1919, and the question of their pensions was also settled. An agreement was arrived at on all sides by which we were able to bury the discontent of the past, and to carry on upon new terms acceptable to all sides. Now wages are to be reduced. It is idle to say they are not, because greater reductions are being made in regard to pensions than were ever contemplated, and if you increase the contributions to these pensions, I think I am right in saying that their wages are being reduced.
During the War what happened? Some of these men, who were due for retirement, were kept on for several years, after they had given notice to retire, until the end of the War. During that time, although they had given notice to retire, and, therefore, their contributions towards their pensions were due to cease, they were compelled to continue paying towards the Pension Fund. Their period for pensions had, therefore, arrived, and they should not have been penalised any more. When they claimed a refund of this money, it was refused on the ground that it was fixed, and that by staying on in the force they were enjoying the pay of the force. If in one case they are obliged to pay; in the other case the Government should also be obliged to maintain the agreement to contribute only 2½ per cent. towards it.
How has the Home Office dealt with the question of the rent allowance? They do not look into the various cases, and see whether it is a hardship or not. They simply take a flat rate of 3s. 6d. off every man's rent allowance. Apparently forgetting that the allowances are vastly different in different parts
of England. Whereas at Cambridge a constable gets 4s. as rent allowance, at Swansea he receives as much as 17s. 6d., and yet the Government propose, by adopting a flat rate, to take 3s. 6d. off the 4s. in the same way as 3s. 6d. is taken off the 17s. 6d. I fail to understand the justice of that. It looks to me like panic legislation. It looks like making a clean sweep, and doing a thing whether it be right or wrong, regardless of the fact that in some cases it hits men very hardly, and in other cases only slightly. There are men who were in the force before the War the rents of whose houses have not been very largely increased during or since the War, and these men are in a vastly better position than those who have joined since the War, or have been married, and who have to pay now as much as 25s. a week as rent. I do not understand the action of the Home Office in this matter. Are they going to be led by the Geddes Committee? That Committee recommended the abolition of standard wages. I hope the Home Office will never agree to that. If there was one thing the Desborough Commission was against, it was the idea of varying rates of pay in different parts of the country. I would like to call particular attention to what the Commission said on this question of standardising police pay:
Such differences as do exist between town and country work, are not merely differences between separate forces, but exist to practically as great a degree between individual members of one and the same force. For example, a Metropolitan policeman may have to do duty in the East End or in one of the outlying parts of the Metropolitan Police District, and his work in the latter would differ in no respect from that of a constable in one of the adjoining counties of Essex, Hefts, Surrey, or Kent; or again in certain counties, for example, Lancashire, Staffordshire, and Worcestershire, populous county boroughs, such as Bury, West Bromwich, Smethwick, and Dudley, as well as the rural and sparsely populated parts of the country, are policed by the County force so that a constable may be serving at one time in one of these areas and at another in a remote country village.
The Home Secretary, I am told, is not going to accept this particular recommendation. I hope he will hesitate a long time before he attempts to follow the Geddes Committee in its Report, for I am sure it will do more damage to the force, and create more discontent than practically anything else.
I wish to call attention to one other matter in reference to economy, and it
is one which, in my opinion, involves a very large amount of money. I want the Home Office to stop, as far as possible, the employment of police constables on work other than police work. I believe that on the Police Commissioner's staff a large number of men are so employed, and that this matter is now being taken into consideration. According to what the Home Secretary says, a large number of policemen are doing work which could be equally well done by ordinary civilians. There is another point into which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to look. I want him to see that the police force and police stations are suitably equipped with telephones throughout the country. There is one notable instance of a county where there is no telephonic connection between the head office and the various police stations in the county, and that must entail an enormous expense in the administration of the force.
I support the Amendment which has been moved to reduce the Vote by £100, as a. protest against the right hon. Gentleman's failure to carry out recommendations for economies which have already been made to the Home Office. If those recommendations had been carried out, in my view this reduction, or rather abolition, of the women police would have been quite unnecessary. If after these recommendations had been carried out it had been found necessary to make further economies, I believe the men themselves, and the women as well, had they been consulted, would gladly have joined, by working longer hours, or accepting reduced pay, in helping the country through its period of financial stress.
May I put one other point to the Home Secretary' Quite recently, for reasons which are best known to himself, the safeguarding and custody of the Houses of Parliament has been taken away—or it will be taken away in a day or two from the regular police, and handed over to men unskilled in this work. Are the night watchers to whom are going to be entrusted these Houses, with all the valuable records and public and private property, to be taken on at the same rates of pay as the regular police, or is economy going to be effected by putting unskilled men on to this work at reduced rates of pay? There are plenty of police who can do this work. It is very important work to safeguard
these Houses and the Government property therein contained. May I ask whether these men to whom the Houses of Parliament are being entrusted at night are to be employed at a reduced wage? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory answer on that point. It is not an easy matter to look after this House or after the Members of it. One has noticed when coming down to the House on many occasions that hon. Members who are not quite so active as others have had great difficulty of getting across the road. One of the privileges of hon. Members of the House is to be allowed fair and reasonable means of getting down to the House without being stopped. The present trouble is not the fault of the old men who know the Members, and know when to hold up the traffic. If new men are put on this duty, how can they be expected to be acquainted with Members in the same way? I think it is a very risky experiment which is going to be tried. I am told that these night watchers will be ex-Service men. I am very glad that work should be found for men who have done their duty in fighting the battles of their country, and I hope, at any rate, that one of the qualifications for appointment will be that the men did go out to fight for their country. But it is a very doubtful experiment to put men on to work which requires a great amount of experience and knowledge, and it would be very bad if one of the reasons for putting them on was that they could be employed at a reduced wage. If that is to he accepted as a good reason, where is the experiment to stop? We shall have competition from the same quarters for men to take the posts of policemen in various other parts of the country. I know there is considerable anxiety about this matter, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
As regards the women police, in my humble opinion they have done very good work. Its excellence has already been admitted by the Home Secretary. True he says it is not police work, but if it be not police work, why were the women appointed? The answer may be that they were appointed as an experiment. The work has been a great success and, therefore, the only reason for doing away with this force must be that we
cannot afford it. I say we could afford it if the Home Office had only carried out the recommendations made for economy in other directions. I do not believe it is necessary to do away with the women police. They have justified their appointment, and I hope the Home Secretary, by the reply he is to give presently, will not make it necessary for us to press this reduction to a Division.

5.0 P.M.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The case for the retention of the women police has been made very convincingly, indeed, by the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham), who moved the reduction of the Vote, and very convincingly seconded by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). We have also had a speech from the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), who was a Member of a. Committee which inquired into the police generally, showing the extent of the economies that could be made in other directions, and urging, therefore, this pitiful little economy, if it be an economy at all, which we deny, need not be made. As these cases have been put to us so convincingly, I should like to confine myself for a few minutes to the consideration of two questions which the Home Secretary recently answered. The first was with reference to the reduction and not the disbandment of the women police patrol. The Home Secretary has stated that he does not intend to disband but only to reduce the patrol. I wonder what a statement like that, made in ordinary English, means to the ordinary citizen. Does it mean a reduction to the extent, say, of one-half of the strength of the force; a considerable reduction perhaps but something far removed from abolition? I think that is what the ordinary person would understand from the right hon. Gentleman's words. The Home Secretary tells us that his intention is that three women patrols should be retained for the purpose of taking statements from women and girls. Fortunately, he has not committed himself to saying that there are to be only three. A reduction of the force to a half-dozen or even a dozen is not a reduction in the ordinary sense as the term would be understood by reasonable men and women, and I think I am justified in saying that those acquainted with the work which the women patrols have done would infinitely
sooner have a straightforward statement that they are going to be disbanded rather than have that intention camouflaged in the terms of a "reduction" only. I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether, as a matter of fact, these three patrols have really been appointed. Three months have elapsed since this matter was brought under the notice of the House of Commons, and yet we do not know even now to what extent the reduction, if it is to be only a reduction, is going to take place. Surely there has been time enough, in those three months, for the Home Secretary to make up his mind about the policy, and, late as it is, at least we hope we may have it this afternoon. The second question which the Home Secretary answered was in regard to an inquiry. The answer was in these words:
I am not aware that there is ally necessity for further inquiry at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 28th June, 1922; col. 2064, Vol. 155.]
I am sure I may state with confidence, on behalf of all those who have asked for an inquiry—on behalf of the many out-side the House of Commons and of the very large number of Members of the House who have signed the petition asking for an inquiry—that all we want by an inquiry is to get at the truth of the case. The Home Secretary makes statements on one side: all the information that we have been able to obtain is on the other side; and what we want to get at is no more and no less than the truth and, the actual facts. We none of us want to oppose an economy, if it really be an economy and if it be upon a service on which an economy is justifiable in any sense at all. All that we want is the truth, and I think our demand for an inquiry, at least, is absolutely unanswerable on the merits of the case. Let me give just one or two proofs of what I mean. On the various occasions on which this subject has been discussed, either in the House or in Committee, we have been told by the Home Secretary that male constables are always told off to be near by for the protection of the women police patrols. We have been told that more than once. It is very difficult. Indeed—I say it without offence—to elicit the facts from the Home Secretary by question and answer in the House, but at least this was one of the points on which we could test the
accuracy of the facts from our own personal experience. The Home Secretary told us that on all occasions male constables were told off to safeguard the women police patrols when they were out on their work.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Have you the words?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot recollect the exact words, either, but I do not think they were quite to that effect.

Viscountess ASTOR: Certainly that was the impression that the right hon. Gentleman made on the House.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will produce the actual words of the Home Secretary, and I am quite certain that they will bear out the inference that male constables have to be within reach of them.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: That, was not the impression on this side of the House.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I took occasion to try and put that personally to the test. Of course, if anyone were to go about the streets of, say, Mayfair or one of the more populous parts of the City, quite obviously there would he a male constable within hearing of a cry or the sound of a police whistle from any woman patrol, but he would equally be within reach of another male constable. But if you go to a place like Balham, or Clapham Common, or Putney Heath, it is different. I spent the whole of one morning out on and near Putney Heath shadowing one of the women patrols, to see whether the male constables really were within reach for their protection. They were not within hearing of a whistle call or a cry all the time I was out there shadowing them, and there was no foundation whatever for any inference of the kind. That was my own personal experience, and I have witnesses who can also attest the facts. It bears out exactly what we have heard, namely, that they are able to go out by themselves, and. have gone out by themselves, and have done their duty without the necessity for any male constable being there for their protection.

Mr. FINNEY: Would it not be true to say that even male constables whistle to one another when they want assistance?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The next statement, in regard to which, again, I think I am not misrepresenting the Home Secretary, is that their work was rescue work or welfare work. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman says that there is no need for an inquiry with regard to that. One is rather curious as to what views prevail within the Home Office itself on this matter. I have taken particular care not to get in touch with anyone inside the Home Office, because, obviously, it would not be the right thing to do, but I have had a letter given to me which an outside body, the Reformatory and Refuge Union, wrote to the Home Office, asking whether there were any disbanded policewomen to whom they could offer work. They received this answer from Scotland Yard:
I am directed by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis to inform you that, although the work of outdoor rescue workers is very different from that for which the Metropolitan policewomen patrols are trained, he will be happy to circulate particulars of the posts among the patrols.
We were told that the work of the Metropolitan policewomen patrols was outdoor rescue work, and from the Home office, in their own letter, there is a direct denial of that statement. Again, I wrote to my own city, of which I represent one of the divisions, and I received this reply:
We do not think here that the women police will be abolished.
This is from the Chief Constable.
A strong case has been made out for their retention. Their work is not philanthropic; they are an adjunct of the ordinary police, and they can deal with cases that the ordinary constable is unable to reach.
That, at any rate, is the opinion of the Chief Constable of one of our greatest English cities, and we are told by the Home Secretary that this is merely rescue work and welfare work. We do consider, in the light of such statements as those which are made to us, that there is a strong case for an inquiry into these matters. Next, we have asked the Home Secretary whether he will let us see the Police Instructions. I do not believe that any important part of the work that the women patrols have been doing cannot be found as part of the Police Instructions to the ordinary police.
We have been told that constables attend for their protection, and I find from personal experience that that is not the case. The Home Secretary thinks there is no need for an inquiry. We are told by him that it is welfare work and rescue work, but, whenever we try to test it, we find, as far as we can make out, that it is not the case, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary still thinks there is no need for an inquiry. Again, the power of arrest has not been given to the women patrols in the Metropolis, and yet, in Section 36 of the Report of the Committee on Women Police, in which the Under-Secretary of State took part and which he signed, it is recommended that they shall be given the power of arrest. The Under-Secretary of State is in favour of it, and the Home Secretary does not give it to them after the Under-Secretary's inquiry. No one wants to seethe the goat in the kid's milk, but at the same time there is every reason why these women should be enabled to do their work properly. The last point, on which again, I suppose, there is no need for inquiry, is that of finance. I wonder whether the Home Secretary can say "No" to the fact that a decision was taken that the male police force should be kept at 30 below its strength because of the work the women patrols were doing, as a matter of economy. I wonder whether he has an answer to the economies that have been suggested by the hon. Member for Hol-born (Sir J. Remnant). I do not want to labour these points, because they have been made before. We know that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the retention of the mounted police; but how many horses are there for the mounted police? More than there were before the War.

Mr. SHORTT: There are fewer.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: For the same purpose?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.

Sir A. STEEL-MA1TLAND: Then perhaps we may ask the Home Secretary if he will give us a return of the precise numbers that there are, and for what purposes. I once had an opportunity of going into the details of the expenditure on the women police. I do not want to weary the Committee by going into them a second time, but there are
expenses that will be involved for the women substitutes that will have to be employed for much of the work that the women police are doing at the present time. They will have to be employed for questioning young persons and for escorting female prisoners; and if there is an impending suicide, whom it is part of the police duties to watch, are substitutes going to be employed, or is that police duty of watching an intending suicide going to be allowed to go undone? With regard to the escorting of female prisoners, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that if the right hon. Gentleman would only allow a woman patrol to escort a woman prisoner, in those cases that are safe, without having two persons to do it, namely, a male constable and a woman, with double fares, double expenses, double payments for time, and all the rest of it, he could save, on that, one-quarter of the whole sum spent every year on the women police.
Those are a few of the direct economies by which the annual expenditure upon the police could be reduced. Let me now refer to the other case that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), namely, the expenditure upon venereal disease. It is an. extraordinarily unpleasant topic to deal with, but in the case of such a topic the more openly it is dealt with the better. The loss that is caused to this country in a year by venereal disease is almost beyond calculation. There were nearly 9,000 fresh cases of syphilis last year; and there were over 11,000 cases of gonorrhoea treated last year. Let me ask the Committee to realise, I will not say the suffering, because I am dealing for the moment purely with the side of economy, but the amount of loss of productive energy to this country which is caused by these fresh cases that have been treated last year. Consider the expense at the clinics and lock hospitals, and the difference in expense between treating those cases early and treating them late. If they are treated early, they cost something between, £2 10s. and £4 10s., but if they are treated late they cost £160 a case, and there were nearly 20,000 of these fresh cases last year. I would ask any Member of the Committee to consider whether that fraction which can be and is prevented by the women patrols getting the poor women of the
streets who are diseased to submit to early treatment, is not worth, in mere cash, in pounds, shillings and pence, the whole of the money expended upon them. That is the case, put as briefly as I can, in regard to venereal disease, and, if anyone replies that it is a case in which there is no need for inquiry, all I can say is that I do not think Gallio or the unjust judge would ever think of returning a different answer.
I have dealt with the economics of the subject, but might I impress this upon the Home Secretary, that the attitude of the Government in dealing with a question like this determines, in the minds of a great many of us, whether it is sincere or not in all its professions with regard to social reform and the social betterment of people in this country? It is an easy thing, or, at any rate, it is an attractive thing for the Government to bring on, I would almost say stagey or theatrical measures or reforms. Those measures may mean many votes, and may occupy headlines in the papers, and great speeches may be made about them; but the real sincerity of the Government can be tested by the way in which it deals in ordinary administration from day to day with these matters which do not occupy so much attention in the daily Press. I wonder whether the Home Secretary himself fully realises the amount of suffering—I have dealt with the economic side—that is caused, for example, by cases of venereal disease which are perfectly preventable and which need never occur. If he does not realise it fully, at least there are others who do. I got word this morning, written to me by a, complete stranger, because, I suppose, they had heard I have an interest in the subject, of a meeting held yesterday at Wandsworth, called by the Mayor of Wandsworth and the Mayor of Lambeth, in order by public collection to get a sufficient sum of money to enable them to keep their women patrols if the Home Office decided to disband them. I knew nothing of that movement whatever until I was told of it late last night and was sent the notice this morning. There, at least, is some proof that some responsible London authorities are alive to the subject in a way the Home Secretary is not. Later this morning I was rung up to say that in
Battersea they were having street-to-street collections in order to get some money to ascertain the state of the case as to whether they should try also to raise money to keep their patrols. I do not think the Home Secretary will take the line that it will save public funds if you get private citizens to do what is clearly a public duty. If he were to take that line, it would be just as logical to say that those for whom police protection was urgently needed ought not to rely on the Home Office to do it, but ought to pay themselves for protection. So I am sure he would not take that line. But I urge upon him to realise, by cases such as these, which came quite fortuitously to my notice, how urgently the subject is considered by those who have the responsibility for London in their hands. Some lines that appeal to me more than any other were those which I expect nearly every Member of the Committee heard, and that is the ordinary hymn which is sung nearly every Hospital Sunday, beginning
Thou to whom the sick and dying
Ever came nor came in vain;
Still with healing word replying
To their wearied cry of pain.
When I think of the thousands who are saved from quite preventable disease, taking the most awful and most ghastly forms, and when I think of the poor women who are rescued in greater numbers by these patrols than are saved in any other way and prevented from going on to the streets, I wonder, if the Home Secretary has really got imagination, what would be his state of mind afterwards if he successfully forced their disbandment, or will he glory in the work he has done?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: The subject of the reduction of the women police has been dealt with so eloquently and interestingly by the hon. Lady who commenced the discussion, and by others, that I do not feel justified in detaining the Committee more than two or three minutes, but as I feel very strongly on this subject, I hope I may be allowed to associate myself heartily with those who protest against the action of the Home Secretary. I think the decision to reduce the women police is unfortunate to the last degree, and there is nothing less surprising than the intense indignation
which has arisen among the women electors and the community generally. The women police during the short time they have been operating have proved conclusively that they have been the sure shield and defence against all those vicious and malignant influences which war against the spirit, the mind and the body of their most defenceless sisters. They: have proved that there is no task too dangerous to be tackled by their courage and their devotion. The hon. Lady proved that they have practically put an end to the practice of white girls going down to those haunts frequented by the riff-raff of the docks, where they make a beginning of their descent into the abyss, and that they have prevented many hundreds of children from being outraged and abused. They have warned many thousands of women against the dangers of the streets and have prevented many hundreds of girls from turning into practised prostitutes. They have been the means of helping many thousands of girls who otherwise would never have been helped. The Home Secretary, if he has his way, may possibly save us £20,000 a year, but what will be the debits on the other side? What shall we have to face? More girls will go wrong, more little children will be outraged and tampered with by designing scoundrels, more girls will fall a prey to the coloured riff-raff of our docks and more and more will syphilis ravish our people. Those will be our losses. Is it really contended for a moment that the value of our mounted policemen can be compared, in terms of helpfulness and utility, with these women police? No one in this Committee values or admires more than I do the smartness and the efficiency of our mounted police. I should like to offer the right hon. Gentleman my congratulations on being such a very good judge of a horse. I wish when I was a young man I had had hunters half as good as the horses which the policemen ride, but I cannot say that they would not be better employed in galloping over the pastures of Leicestershire than parading up and down Birdcage Walk.
But there are other spheres in which the administration of the Home Office has been equally harmful, detrimental and neglectful, and where the extravagance of the Government has been visited on the most weak and defence-
less of our community. What is the only safeguard against abuse and neglect of the Factory Acts but the efficiency and the number of the inspectors? The needs have greatly increased since the War, but I find the inspectorate has been cut down to such a degree that there are 17 fewer factory inspectors operating now than there were before the War. You have a staff of 197 factory inspectors responsible for 282,000 factories—1,500 each—and is it surprising that accidents have increased and that, in the words of the chief factory inspector, as the inspectorate goes down the cost is counted in terms of arms, legs and lives? This is the result of the cutting down of the factory inspectorate, which has been and is being measured in arms, legs and lives. Take again the dangerous trades. The Home Secretary has cut down his inspectorate from five to three. The Home Office rule is that every factory engaged in a dangerous trade should be visited once in three months, but, owing to the cutting down of the inspectorate, it is quite impossible to inspect those factories more than once a year. The result is that one of the district inspectors says he is employed entirely in attending inquests rather than inspecting factories. I wish to register my emphatic protest against the cowardly manner in which the Home Secretary has yielded the interests of the women and children to a reactionary stunt. To him that bath shall be given is the watchword of the Government. We have peerages for profiteers and honours for fraudulent trustees and tax dodgers and traders with the enemy. At the same time the interests of the women and children are neglected, and I, for one, was never more thankful than I am at the present moment that I am sitting on this side of the House and not on the other.

Viscountess ASTOR: The question of women police has been so ably put from all sections of the Committee that it needs no words of mine, but really we thought the question of the women police was settled long before it came to the House. The Home Secretary appointed an impartial Committee, composed of Members of both Houses, to look into the subject, and they made such a case for the women police that all people interested in the subject thought it was
settled once for all. Then came the Anti-waste party, with their wasteful cry for economy in the wrong direction. Then came the Geddes Committee, and to the absolute horror of all, certainly of all women, interested in social hygiene and moral questions, we saw that the London patrol women were going to be disbanded. We pressed the Home Secretary to know what evidence the Geddes Committee had, and as far as we can make out the only evidence they had was from the Home Secretary himself. I cannot help feeling that if only the Home Secretary had given the Geddes Committee his own Committee's report, even those hardheaded business men of real ability—a great deal more ability than some that criticised them—would have seen, from the financial point of view, that we could not afford to disband the women police. I do not want to join in the hue and cry against the Home Secretary. I deplore the attacks which have been made on him lately. I think all just-minded people must have hated them. All of us who are interested in real things hate these stunt attacks. I beg the Home Secretary to consider how difficult he makes it for his supporters—the supporters of the Government—when he makes a tactical blunder like this. He knows he has made a blunder, and all the Government knows he has made a blunder. But I believe the Home Secretary is a big enough man to say, "I have made a blunder. I will rise before the House and say, 'forgive me and let us start again.'" I am backing the Home Secretary. I think he can do it. I should like him to remember, first of all, that he is up against not only the opinion of most people in this House, but the whole moral opinion of the women of this country. It really comes to that. This is not a personal quarrel with the Home Secretary. It is a great moral issue. He knows perfectly well that if he disbands these London patrols it is going to have a bad effect throughout the country. It is going to give a handle to the reactionary local authorities, who are only too glad to get women out of anything. He knows that he is only putting a weapon into their hands. Much as we deplore it, there is a section of the community who hate the very sight of women. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Yes, in public affairs—they love them the other way too much—and, really, the reason is because
we are new brooms and we are determined to sweep clean. We will not be put off by much of that with which the men have been put off. When things are wrong in a town we mean to go to the bottom of it. That is what the women police have done. They have gone to the bottom of things, and for some corn-inanities they have seen too much. I have a great respect for the police force in this country, and you will find that the more intelligent of the men police will tell you that when it comes to social and moral questions, to the cleaning up and down, the women are a great help.
I will not try to appeal to the sympathy of the Committee, because I know that all right-thinking people, certainly the fathers of girls, must be with us. The women police may not affect the children of Members of the House of Commons, but they do affect the children of thousands in this country, who are the most unprotected in the whole community. The Home Secretary said that he is not going to disband the women police, but that he is going to reduce them. Be honest. You know perfectly well that that is camouflage. You must know that what you are going to do is that you are going to appoint four women to look after the whole of London. You are going to get them to deal with cases of criminal assault, and you say that these women will he there to deal with these cases. They cannot do it. You have 160 police stations in London. How can four women do this work? It means that when these cases come in, unless the woman is there the cases will have to be questioned by a man. I feel certain that that is the last thing that the Members of this House of Commons want. They do not want children to be subject to be questioned by men. It is a terrible thing, and it has been proved by all the women who are dealing with these cases that it really has a psychological effect on the mind of the child, long afterwards. No matter what the Home Secretary tells us, if he thinks he is going to fool us by saying that he is going to have all these cases dealt with by women, I reply that the women cannot do it. The women to whom the work is offered will not accept it.
The Home Secretary thinks that there has been a little disloyalty about this. Does he realise how tremendously women care about it? One woman in the police
force said to me: "I am a poor woman. I have not, a penny of my own, but rather than accept it at a high salary I would go out as a protest." It must be pretty bad if a woman who has to make her own living feels so strongly about this matter that she would refuse to accept a position from the Home Secretary, knowing that it is simply eye-wash. I appeal to the Home Secretary, and beg him not to go against the whole organised opinion of the women of the country. What is the use of our having votes unless we can vote to simulate and interest men on questions of this kind? The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said, quite rightly, that he had looked into the case lately, and, having looked into it and brought a just, fair and very able mind to bear upon it, he made a most powerful speech on the subject. The hon. Member for the Erdington Division of Birmingham (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) also made a powerful speech. I beg the Home Secretary not to think that this is just. an agitation by a few fanatical women. It is nothing of the kind. He is hitting the conscience of the whole organised and unorganised women voters of the country.
I do not want to threaten, but I do want to appeal to him to be a man. Be a man. Say you have made a mistake. We all make mistakes every day of our lives. Say you have made a mistake. Do make it possible for your followers, people like myself, who are ready to defend you when you are right and hate to attack you when you are wrong, to feel confidence in you. Give us a chance, and do not create chaos among women by disbanding this force in London, and letting down the whole moral tone. That is where the women's strength lies. We are out for fighting these moral issues. Men can put up a financial case far better than we can. They can put up many other cases better than we can, but when it comes to a question of children and women, and when it comes to that tragic question of prostitution, we feel that the women of the country have quite a different vision from the men. We also feel that it is unfair to ask young men police to take on these cases. It would not be fair to our own sons to put them in that position. Get more women police, and put the whole question of prostitution in their hands. Give them the powers
of arrest, and show that you are not a reactionary, but an up-to-date Liberal, ready to do what is right.

Mr. SHORTT: Although I know there is a considerable number of other points that will be raised on this Vote, probably it will meet with the approval of the Committee if I deal with this particular aspect, before the others are reached. The Debate has been very interesting, and the case for the retention of the full number of women police has been put not, only with great ability but with great fairness and great moderation. There is very little that has been said with which anyone, who knows anything of the subject., could possibly quarrel. We may differ about the description of things, or the names applied to them, but, so far as the arguments have gone, I do not think there is very much difference between any of us. We have had enumerated by several speakers the various duties which are better carried out, by women than by men, and with the single exception of that one duty, which takes a woman out upon patrol, namely, that of looking after young girls and preventing, as far as possible, their fall into lives of sin, every one of the duties that they perform will continue to be performed by women. Hon. Members have spoken as if, when this force is disbanded, the statements by women and children in incest cases or in indecency cases will be taken by men. They were not taken by men before the women police were put into uniform, and they will continue to be taken by women, and by trained women as far as possible. That, again, is a duty where, so far as the Commissioner can secure it, women take off their uniforms when they go to perform it. They go in mufti.
Take another case which was put with considerable strength, the cocaine practice, the dangerous drugs traffic. It is said that it is in ladies' lavatories that the exchange traffic takes place. Is it supposed that women who are sent to detect the traffic in cocaine in places where women are alone, without the presence of men, would go wearing their uniform Of course, they would go in plain clothes, and they will continue to go in plain clothes. Many women are going to-day. Women employed by our Criminal Investigation Department, who have nothing to do with the women's patrol at all, are
doing that work to-day and every day. I could mention many other duties, such as searching, escorts, and other duties, which have always, been done by women, and will continue to be done by women. None of these are matters in which a uniformed patrol force is in the least necessary. The case of the would-be suicide was mentioned. These have always been watched by women. There is always a woman available for the purpose of attending to the wants of a woman prisoner, or sitting beside a woman prisoner in cases where it is necessary. These things have been done 'by women and always will be done by women. Of course that will involve expense. The £20,000 which it is estimated will be saved by this reduction in the women police force is the balance after making allowance, as far as it is possible to estimate it, for the whole of that description of expenditure.
May I remind the Committee of the position in which I found myself when I had to discuss and consider how to get our economies in the police force. I would remind the Committee of the Circular which was sent out to the various Departments by the Treasury—
You are therefore asked to consider the expenditure of your Department with a view to eliminating all services, without exception, which are not absolutely and directly necessary.
Those are very strong words. They could not be put stronger. It was the decision of all of us in the Cabinet that we must, as far as it was humanly possible, work to the Geddes Report. I was, therefore, faced with this position, that I had only a limited amount of money to spend upon the police force this year. I had to get, somehow or other, immediate economies which would be felt in this Budget and in the Estimates which I had to put before Parliament this year. At the same time, I had to maintain the efficiency of the police force. I had reduced to the utmost margin of safety the strength of the London police force. One knows that the police force of this country is our first line of defence. It is absolutely vital that one should not reduce the work of the police, which is the maintenance of public safety, the safeguarding of life, limb, and property, beyond a certain figure. One must keep sufficient men to protect the people of the Metropolis. I
looked round to find out what possible economy I could make before touching the women police at all. I explored every possible direction in which it was possible to make economies before I came to the women police.
I would like to bear testimony in this connection to the loyal way in which the police themselves have assisted me in this matter. I had meetings with their representatives. I put the whole financial position before them, and we had an analysis. They recommended to me the reductions which I have made. Those reductions which are not in the Geddes Committee Report, but which produce the same amount of money, are the result of suggestions made to me by the men themselves through their central representative body. They have been most loyal and patriotic in the whole matter, but we have reduced them to the utmost limit. I have persistently refused to touch their pensionable pay, but their pockets have been touched, and they have willingly come forward and agreed to their pockets being touched. I have reduced the men force to the utmost limit. We had got out of the men all the financial economies and sacrifices that I could properly ask them to make, and there remained this sum to be made up.
What was I to do? I had to turn to these women police. I had to ask, "Am I justified, in face of this Geddes Committee Report, in keeping the whole of these women on the police fund?" and I came to the conclusion that I was not. I came to that conclusion having had careful calculations made, and having taken into consideration that some of the work which they do must still be done by women. I think that that meant a saving of something like £20,000, and I felt it my duty to do. it. I knew perfectly well that there would be strong objection to that. I confess that I did it with the greatest possible personal regret. T supported the creation of the women police: I set up the Committee myself, and no one admires more the work which they have done, their proper work, and the way in which they have done it more than I do. With regard to such questions as the taking of statements and the other work which had been done before, I am not going to say that they do it any better than the women who were previously employed, or do it any
better than the women whom we shall employ. But for the work which they have done in the streets, patrolling among the girls and the young people whom they try to save, I yield to no one in my admiration. That really was their main object. It was work of that kind which requires a uniformed force. Practically none of the rest of the work which they do requires a uniformed force. It is work which results in rescue which is their main work, and the main object of having a uniformed force, and the main reason why one is only too anxious, when finances allow, that there should be once more that uniformed force.
I knew there would be a considerable amount of objection to what was being done, and it was suggested to me, and I at once agreed, that in order' to secure that there should be a new force created, when money would allow, a nucleus of this force should be left. I agreed to that, and set to work to consult the Commissioner in order to carry out that suggestion. One thing certainly is, that if you are going to have a nucleus, which is going to be of the slightest value for the reforming of the force, in getting together an efficient body again, you must have a nucleus consisting chiefly of the higher officer, and if we had kept a number of the higher officers who are trained and experienced, the Commissioner assured me that, well within three months from any given date, he would undertake to have 150 trained women patrolling the streets. So that the nucleus, so long as it consisted of the skilled officers, the senior people, would have been of the greatest possible value.
Of course, the best way to do that was to try to arrange that all the services which would still be performed by women would be performed by this nucleus. We approached a lady who was high in the service. The reason she gave to us for refusing the post was not that which was given to us to-day. She may have had both reasons, I do not know. All we knew was that there was some influence behind her—where it came from we did not know—which prevented her from giving us any assistance whatever in the formation of this nucleus. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has herself said she supposed and thought that there was disloyalty in this matter. Candidly, I do think so. Take the position. We have sketched out a division
of London into areas for the purpose of taking the statements of women and children in indecency cases. We have, quite outside of the police force and women patrols, women employed to-day on that work, and the Commissioner and I agreed that in three of those districts to offer to three of the women patrols that they were to continue in their present position, with the same pensionable rights and all the rest of it—in fact, that their present services should be continued, but that their special work was to be that of taking these statements. Yesterday morning it was all settled. Yesterday morning they had agreed to do that.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am very sorry to interrupt, but there is a mistake about that. The women really had not agreed, because they said they would have to go and think it over. There was no undue influence. They had never agreed.

Mr. SHORTT: Apparently the hon. Member for Plymouth is better informed of what goes on confidentially in Scotland Yard than I am.

Viscountess ASTOR: I am.

Mr. SHORTT: I repeat that it was absolutely settled yesterday morning, and I have with me a statement which was made to the Commissioner, showing how two of them came to change their mind. They were approached, and they were told that they must refuse until after to-day's Debate, because to consent to help me to form the nucleus would injure those of their colleagues who were not being retained.

Viscountess ASTOR: Oh, no. That is not so.

Mr. WALLACE: Would it be possible to let us have the statement?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes:
Mrs. Stanley told myself, Inspector Dixon, and Sergeant Butcher that if we accepted the positions the Commissioner had offered, the Secretary of State would he in a position to say that a nucleus had been left in the force, and that this Debate, to take place in the House of Commons on the 29th, would fall through and disbandment would go on to a finish. I am unable to give the exact words, because they have been said in effect on so many occasions by Mrs. Stanley"—
Mrs. Stanley, I may remind the Committee, is the head of the force—
The last time she mentioned this was yesterday morning.
This was taken to-day.

Dr. MURRAY: Voluntarily?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes.
She told us to play for time. I am sure and confident that Inspector Dixon wanted the post and I believe that Sergeant Butcher would also like to get it, but we were told we should be disloyal to our other colleagues it we accepted the positions at the present time. Mrs. Stanley first told me about this appointment on Saturday the 24th June. She told mo that it was connected with the taking of statements. She said she would like us to have the posts and knew we would do our duty and our best, but we were not to accept until the Debate was over. Miss Morris was in and out of the room when this was going on. Mrs. Stanley said, of course, that we were grown women, and could please ourselves but I knew what the position would be if I accepted it. When the interview took place yesterday morning we formulated certain questions regarding matters affecting our pay and pensions and these appeared on discussion to be satisfactorily cleared up. I certainly understood I was to get one of the positions.

Lord R. CECIL: May I assume that this statement will be laid on the Table?

Mr. SHORTT: I should not have read it unless I were prepared to do so.

Viscountess ASTOR: May we have the name?

Mr. SHORTT: I was honestly trying to carry out my promise to form a nucleus. I am willing now to carry it out and to leave a sufficient body to make this nucleus. I will tell the Committee exactly what I had in my mind to propose. I wanted the chief officers, and I wanted the total number of officers of the force to be 20. I thought that that was a fair and reasonable offer to make, as a nucleus upon which a new force could be immediately built up any moment that there was financial power to do so.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Would they be in uniform?

Mr. SHORTT: That would be arranged. They could be on a sufficient number of occasions in uniform to let it be known that they were a uniformed force. What I wished to guard against was that it could be said in future that the force had been done away with altogether. I
wanted anyone in future to be able to say, "the force was never done away with, and all we want you to do now, when finances permit, is to increase it." do think that I have made a perfectly fair offer. I have done my best to secure what was the spirit of the intention and the spirit of my promise—namely, that every facility should be put in the way of restoring the force when the finances would allow. That offer is still open, and I ask the Committee to re-collect my position. I must save this money somehow. I have reduced the force to the utmost margin. I cannot ask the men to make greater sacrifices than they have made.

Viscountess ASTOR: You are asking the women.

Mr. SHORTT: I am still anxious that this offer should be accepted, and I will do anything to secure all that anyone can reasonably ask.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sure that the Committee will regret, as I regret, that a certain amount of influence has been brought to bear upon the women police which I think should not have been brought to bear, and I regret, also, that it does not seem that the Home Secretary is going to meet the wishes of those who have spoken in the Debate. I hope that whatever may be the issue of this Debate that the nucleus will be preserved, and I think that these ladies will be well advised to accept the offer and to continue the existence of the force even in so skeleton, and, as I think, so disadvantageous a form. The Home Secretary had to answer. Apart from the incident to which ho has referred, he would have found it exceedingly difficult to answer the very remarkable series of speeches made on the subject. I have seldom listened to speeches which were more cogent, better documented and which appealed less to sentiment, as far as that sentiment was not closely related to a practical objective. What the Home Secretary said in his reply was an admission of the case. He did not, attempt to answer the case. On the ground of expense and the saving to the community the Committee will be justified in seeing that this most important service is carried on.
6.0 P.M.
Let us get down to the point. What is the cost? It is estimated at between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. I do not think I am far out when I say that making a reduction for standing charges and for expenses, which must be incurred in any event, the total cost will not exceed £15,000 a year. The saving to be effected, therefore, will be round about £15,000. What is to be the position as it is left by the Home Secretary? As was demonstrated by the very remarkable statement of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), supplemented by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), you are going to lose far more by this so-called saving than if you maintained the force. On the direct side, of course, you might make a saving. But are you going to take the short view or the long view'? Is your economy to be on salaries or on the elevation of morals? On which are you to save? If you save on salaries you will save about £15,000. But you will lose on your hospitals and your prisons, and in the cost of the social wreckage which you are now saving by this force. It is a question of social salvage, and that is admitted. Why is the Home Secretary dealing with it on these lines? He gave us his answer. It is the recommendation of the Geddes Committee. He admits the ease for the force. But the Geddes Committee was set up. It went round and made its very capable, but very hasty, investigations. Whom did the members of that Committee see? They had the advantage of hearing the Home Secretary and the Commissioner of Police. What was the attitude of the Geddes Committee? It was, "We must save money anyhow." That may be an excellent idea. But they had no time to inquire into the salvage and the great preventive work of which we have heard to-day. How could they?
As to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, we know that there are many of them which have not been carried out. The Home Secretary was under no moral obligation to implement every recommendation of the Geddes Committee. That is shown by what has happened in other Departments. But his case was, "I was asked by the Geddes Committee and the Government to make what saving I could. I cut down the police in many very important directions,
and I thought that, perhaps, we could save £20,000 a year by cutting this women's force down to zero." On the grounds submitted to the Committee this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman's case failed. I regret very much that I shall have to go into the Lobby against him. T would much rather not do so. If the Home Secretary bad gone further and had said that he was prepared to maintain something more than a nucleus and to make this force a fighting unit in the great battle against social devastation and degradation in this metropolis, there would be no division to-day. Cannot he do that now? I say on my personal responsibility that if he would maintain this Women's Police Force at 30, or round about that figure, we could save the Force effectively. From that he could build upwards. Better to have anything rather than this mere skeleton.

Mr. SHORTT: If it is not numbers that you are bothering about, what is it? I may be able to meet my right hon. Friend. As I understand it, these people will do these duties which the police women are doing now. They are curtailed in their numbers, but if there is a particular necessity for a women's patrol amongst girls in any particular place, up to the 20 they will be available for that work, just as they are at present. Women are not always on the same beat. We may hear that they are required here or there, and they are sent. The only difference in future will be the numbers.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Do I understand the Home Secretary to say that the force will not be reduced? Is he prepared to consider the question of the force not being cut down to the nucleus of four or five?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already mentioned the figure of 20.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Twenty in uniforms?

Mr. SHORTT: They are all in uniforms.

Sir D. MACLEAN: That is uniformed patrols. For this year, if they were brought up to 30 or 50, as the case might be—[HON. MEMBERS:" No, no!"]—There is no catch-penny business about it. Cannot the Home Secretary meet some Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Stand firm!"]—If hon. Members who have not heard the Debate at all on a
social issue of the most vital importance, now rush in with their interjections—

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: On a point of Order. Is it right that the right hon. Member should accuse Members who have been sitting here for a long time, of not listening to the Debate? Is it not only out of order, but very improper?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I was not referring to the hon. Member.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): The right hon. Gentleman made a rhetorical observation which is not out of order.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I leave it to the Committee. If my right hon. Friend will arrange for a further discussion of this question, I certainly Will riot go into the Lobby against him.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I am sure the Home Secretary will understand what I mean when I say that, as regards the statement which he read to us, we must reserve our judgment until we have heard both sides of the case. One thing is quite clear. When this House or any legislative assembly comes to concern itself with matters of administrative detail, there is always a danger of undue influence, and that is why I sincerely hope we shall not bargain with the Home Secretary across the Floor of the House as between 20 or 30 or 40. That is his responsibility, and we vote for or against him according as we think he carries it out. The reason why I shall vote against the Home Secretary in this Division is that, bad as interference by a legislative assembly may be in matters of administrative detail, it cannot possibly be avoided if administration is made a matter of successive Committees and Commissions and if the head of a Department, instead of taking upon himself the responsibility of administering his service, follows to-day the advice of one Committee and to-morrow that of another, as the Home Secretary has done in this case. The right hon. Gentleman appointed a Departmental Committee. That Committee has reported and he carried out its Report. The moment the Geddes Committee came along he immediately went in the opposite direction. That, is the kind of wibble-wobble administration we are always having from one or other of the Members of the Cabinet. On the whole, I appreciate the
Home Secretary's attitude to-day on this question, which is a, very difficult one, but I do feel so strongly on this subject of spasmodic administration, that looking on the whole record of the right hon. Gentleman's administration of the women police, I shall be compelled to go into the Lobby against him.

Brigadier-General COCKERILL: While agreeing in the main with the Noble Lord who has just spoken, on the subject of administration, I would remind the Committee we are now dealing with this narrow question of the women police, and I wish to understand clearly the exact nature of the proposal which the Home Secretary offers. I understand he offers definitely 20 women police who on suitable occasions will be in uniform and will be employed as heretofore on police duties, visible and patrolling in the streets, so that everyone may know that the women police force remains in existence. [Mr. SHORTT assented.] There is no question as to the need for this force. It has been stated with force and cogency from all sides of the Committee and with the Committee's permission will quote from a letter written by one who has great experience of police questions, namely, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, who at least knows what he is talking about. On this question of women police, he said:
The policewoman of the future will he a most potent agent for crime prevention and will do more in one day in that respect than the modern police department in a large city does in a year to-day.
What the Home Secretary has said as to the pressing reasons for not maintaining the women police at the present strength is obviously very forcible. We cannot resist it, but I am sure many other hon. Members are like myself most anxious to see this force visible in our streets, and since that is promised, I shall not vote against the Government.

Mr. NAYLOR: The fact that this is the first opportunity any Labour Member has had of speaking on the question under discussion will, I hope, be accepted by the Committee as a sufficient excuse for my intervention. The statement of the Home Secretary is extremely disappointing. For the first time, I think, he has acknowledged that it is on the grounds of economy that the women police patrols
are to be reduced and that if it had not been for the wish previously expressed in the House, they would have been disbanded altogether. It is quite unnecessary to go into reasons in favour of the retention of the force; the Government this afternoon has proved there is every reason for their retention and even for their increase. I am not satisfied with promises as to the number of the force. The proper number is the number required to cope with the evils with which this force is called upon to deal. There is no use in talking of a matter of 20 women police for the greatest city in the world. We could put 20 policewomen into each of the districts of London and give them work which would keep them busy from one week end to another.
I think it is astounding that in the Debate which has just taken place not one single voice has been raised in support of the Home Secretary's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of economy in connection with his Department. The final responsibility is not with the Home Secretary but with the Cabinet, which has the control of the expenditure of every Department, and the Home Secretary must have consulted the Cabinet before coming to this important decision. Talk of economy! If "my lady" in a hot-el in London loses her jewellery, there is no question of economy. Half a dozen detectives are at once put on the track of the robbers, and a search is made all over the country and in different parts of the world in order that the property of "my lady" may be recovered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite agree with me there. I want them to agree with me, because we are living under certain recognised laws, and those laws must be obeyed and property must be respected. But is material wealth the only property of the nation? There are other forms of wealth than money and valuables, and it is those other forms of wealth which require protection at the hands of the women police. I deprecate the suggestion made that this work is not necessary to any greater extent than is represented by the efforts of about 20 women. As no hon. Member has risen to give reasons for objecting to the full maintenance of the force, I presume hon. Members favour it, and I sincerely trust they will have the courage of their convictions and vote accordingly.

Sir C. WARNER: I do not think it fair that this Debate should conclude without any hon. Member having spoken in support of the Home Secretary. Many of us on this side of the House thoroughly support him. We must put aside all question of the enormous good which this police force might do, because that is not a fair position to take up. At the present moment we have to give up a great many things which might prove to be an enormous saving to the country in the future. It is quite true that if we can stop crime, it will be a saving to the country in future. Was not exactly the same thing said when there was a proposal to reduce the Army and Navy? Was it not said then, all round, that to do so was a false economy and that the keeping up of a larger Army and Navy would save the country so much in the future. [HON. MEMEBER: "Who said it?"] Bead the OFFICIAL REPORT and you will find that hundreds of people have said it. Was there a single demand made by Labour, in the interests of the health of the people, or for the regulation of work, or for the prevention of injustice and refused on the ground of economy, that would not have saved money in the future? Every one of these proposed reforms have been turned down, not because we do not know that in the future they would effect a saving, but because we know that to-day we cannot afford them. I have pledged myself before my constituents to two things. One is that I shall vote against increased expenditure, and the other is that I shall not vote for a reduction of taxation until the finances of the country are in a better condition.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) said the Home Secretary was to blame for having taken the advice of one Committee, and then reversed his decision on the advice of another. The Home Secretary took the advice of a Departmental Committee which recommended the plan—which is acknowledged by himself to have been and is stated by everybody who is objecting to his conduct, to have been, a good plan—of raising a woman police force. The day came when the country was in financial difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman had to make reductions in his Department, much less than other Department, but still, he had to make some
substantial reductions. Was he to do so by risking the peace of this city or the country as a whole That would have been the meaning of it had the economy been made in connection with the men police. He took the only thing that was not an absolute necessity of the moment, and I say the women police force was not an absolute necessity. Every hon. Member who thinks clearly and carefully over the matter will realise that, for the moment, it was not an absolute necessity. The second Committee was a Committee appointed to find out where reductions could be made in the national expenditure. We know the country must have reductions in expenditure, and must go even further than it has already gone in that direction. It is true that some of the suggestions of the Geddes Committee have not been adopted. Some of them have been found impossible, but not a single Department has turned down the whole of the recommendations and declined to reduce at all. The Home Secretary did what was done in other Departments. He turned down some of the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, but he had to find other means of making economies, and that is the position of every Department. We cannot possibly reduce the expenditure of the country by discussing questions as to why we are not spending as much on this thing or on that as formerly. Our position is that we should tell the Departments that they must reduce. If, when every slight reduction is made, we are to declare that it is an infringement of some principle, we shall bring the country to ruin, and I cannot understand why we should refuse economics, even when to carry out these economies we have to cut off something which, though its abolition appears to us a hardship, is not of absolute necessity.

Major GLYN: I want to be quite clear what the Division is to be about. I understood from the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) that he did not intend to go into the Lobby for the Amendment if the Home Secretary would agree to maintain an adequate nucleus of this force and would see to it that the members of that force showed themselves in public, so that the country knew that that force was in existence and in uniform. Also it was clearly understood that at the first opportunity the Home Secretary intends to expand that force.
During the Debate it was rather obvious that some of the duties performed by women in the service of the police were quite clearly understood as being necessarily the duties of the women police patrols. The Criminal Investigation Department have women detectives, and in regard to the cocaine traffic they have to employ detectives, but obviously not uniformed women police patrols. Therefore, I am anxious to know what is the approximate figure that the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) thinks it is right to be put down as the nucleus for maintaining the women police force. I am absolutely in favour of them. I know well what good work they have done, and it seems to me that there must be soma figure that can be arrived at at which to maintain that nucleus and give us the assurance that the force will be extended as soon as financial conditions allow.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: The hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn) has asked a perfectly legitimate question, and I am afraid I am not in a position to answer it. I doubt very much whether it can be answered by any private Member of this House. The hon. Member for Lich-field (Sir C. Warner) said, "We desire economy, but we shall never get economy if we say that every economy proposed infringes some principle." I am thoroughly agreed with that argument, and if this were a question merely of maintaining a principle, so far as I am concerned, I should not vote for the reduction; but I look at it rather differently. The Home Secretary has now, I think, in a most fair speech, if he will allow me to say so put the issue very clearly before us. He says quite definitely that there are some of the police duties of the women which can be dealt with otherwise, but he admits that there is one which only uniformed women can deal with properly, and that is what I will call, broadly, the protection of the women and the children in this city, and he said most strongly—and was very glad to hear him say it, because it confirms what other and less well informed persons have said—that he thought they had done most admirable work of that kind, and that it was work which only uniformed women could do. Those are the facts, and surely that is
very important work. We have had many statements, with which I entirely agree, to the effect that it would he very wrong to reduce the male police force of this city so low as not to provide properly for the protection of life and property. I do not think any Member of the House, however vehement an economist, would think it right to reduce the male police force of this city so as to endanger not only the life, but the property of the citizens. I agree most fully, but are we really going to say that that is true and that we will stick to it, but that we think it quite legitimate to economise in a force which is protecting the women and children of the city? Is that really a reasonable position to take up? If it can be shown that we are maintaining too many women for this purpose, that they are useless, or that they are not really required for the purpose, then I agree they should be cut down.

Sir C. WARNER: They are not absolutely necessary.

Lord R. CECIL: I hear the hon. Member say, "They are not absolutely necessary," but what does he mean by "necessary"? If they are performing this duty, which surely is as important as any duty which a police force can perform, and if they are necessary for that duty, surely they are absolutely necessary. I can only go by what the Home Secretary tells us. He says they are doing most admirable work that can only be dole by uniformed women, and if that be so, and be recognises that they are doing this work, I confess I feel it impossible to vote for any proposition which will cut down that force below what is necessary for what seems to me to be just as essential work as any other work done by the police in affording protection for life and property, protection against fire, and the numerous other duties which the police perform. Therefore, as far as I am personally concerned, although I do not want to press the Government unduly in this matter—I am anxious to get a result—yet I could not bring myself to vote for any proposal unless the Home Secretary officially assures me that he is quite satisfied that these duties, which he says are so necessary and are so usefully performed by these women, will not in any way suffer from the reduction of their numbers.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: It has been suggested in the Debate that the pruning recommended by the Geddes Committee should be carried out. In the case of the police force, we had 111 women patrols, and to-day there are 56. I do not think there is any economy proposed in the Geddes Report which has resulted in a service being cut down by one half, and that is the ease with the women police to-day. The hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn)

asked what number of women police patrols I would accept. I do not think one could possibly reduce the number below what it is to-day, namely, 56, unless the Home Secretary would guarantee that if that number were reduced they should have the power of arrest

Question put, "That Item A be reduced by £100."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 174.

Division No. 192.]
AYES.
[6.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Hayday, Arthur
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Viscountess
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Banton, George
Hogge, James Myles
Rattan, Peter Wilson


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Remnant, Sir James


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Rendell, Athelstan


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barrand, A. R.
Irving, Dan
Samuel, A. M. (surrey, Farnham)


Been, Capt. Sir I H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simm, M. T.


Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Lawson, John James
Swan, J. E.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Thomson, T. (Middlesbroug h, West)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Briant, Frank
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Mailalieu, Frederick William
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Bruton, Sir James
Malone, C. L. (Leyton. E.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham. S.)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Cairns, John
Martin, A. E.
Wignall, James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Morrison, H ugh
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Mosley, Oswald
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wolmer, Viscount


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newbould, Alfred Ernest



France, Gerald Ashburner
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Nield, Sir Herbert
Mrs. Wintringham and Mr. Ronald


Hallas, Eldred
O'Connor, Thomas P.
McNeill.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Dean, Commander P. T.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Edgar, Clifford B.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hun. F. S.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jephcott, A. R.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Evans, Ernest
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Barnston, Major Harry
Falcon, Captain Michael
Johnstone, Joseph


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Fell, Sir Arthur
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H, (Devizes)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George


Beliairs, Commander Canyon W.
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Kidd, James


Bigland, Alfred
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lane-Fox, G. R.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Glyn, Major Ralph
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lindsay, William Arthur


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lloyd, George Butler


Breese, Major Charles E.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Lorden, John William


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Gregory, Holman
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grenfell Edward Charles
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)


Casey, T. W.
Gretton, Colonel John
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Gritten, W. G. Howard
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
McMicking, Major Gilbert


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Macnaghten, Sir Malcolm


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Llv'p'1,W.D'by)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harmeworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wallace, J.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Murchison, C. K.
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.
Ward, Col. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Neal, Arthur
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Waring, Major Walter


Newton, Sir Percy Wilson
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Warner, Sir T. Courteray T.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sprat, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersneld)
Steel, Major S. Strang
; Winterton, Earl


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stewart, Gershom
Wise, Frederick


Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)


Parker, James
Sturrock, J. Leng
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Sugden, W. H.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Pearce, Sir William
Sutherland, Sir William
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Plnkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Thomas-Stanford; Charles
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C, (Aberdeen, South)
Younger, Sir George


Purchase, H. G.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)



Raehurn, Sir William H.
Tickler, Thomas George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Townley, Maximilian G
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Reid, D. D.
Tryon, Major George Clement
McCurdy.


Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Original Question again proposed.

Colonel GRETTON: The matter to which I desire to call attention is connected with the Debate in this House in which questions were asked in connection with the assassination of Field-Marshal Sir Henry Wilson. I am in a position of great difficulty, because, clearly, when we discuss instructions given to the police we are on very dangerous ground, face to face as we are at the present time with a dangerous conspiracy against order and against life in this country. The other day the Home Secretary, in the speech he made, dealt with one particular piece of information which was given in a particular form on a particular occasion, and he said that this particular information was treated as of no value. I would like to call attention to what occurred in regard to the Intelligence Department of Scotland Yard. I am not going to give anything away which would be of any use to anybody. When Sir Basil Thomson was Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Department he had direct access to Ministers to make his reports to the Cabinet, but when Sir Basil Thomson was dismissed—I am not going into that, but I still think most strongly that he was very badly used, and that a great public servant received treatment which was abominable and shameful—the Intelligence Department was put into other hands, and the Chief of the Intelligence Department no longer had access to Ministers. I believe that is so now. The reports filter through several hands before they reach the Home Secretary, and through him to other Ministers in the Cabinet. Obviously, here and now on the
Floor of the House I cannot disclose the exact source of my information, but I am informed quite definitely that more than one warning has been received by the Intelligence Department.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Whereupon the Gentleman. Usher of the Black Rod being come with a Message, the Chairman left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Audit (Local Authorities, etc.) Act, 1922.
2. Government of the Sudan Loan (Amendment) Act, 1922.
3. Law of Property Act, 1922.
4. Oxford and St. Albans Wine Privileges (Abolition) Act, 1922.
5. Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1922.
6. Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1922.
7. Colne Valley Water Act, 1922.
8. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Act, 1922.
9. Bradford Canal (Abandonment) Act, 1922.
10. Bristol Corporation Act, 1922.
11. Stock Conversion and Investment Trust, Limited (North Western Trust) Act, 1922.
12. Rugby School Act, 1992.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question again proposed,

7.0 P.M.

"That a sum, not exceeding 2198,956, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of pay-meat during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."

Colonel GRETTON: I beg, to move, "That Item A (Salaries, wages, and allowances) be reduced by £1,000 in respect of the salary of the Secretary of State."
When I was interrupted I was calling attention to the fact that the Chief of the Intelligence Department of Scotland Yard no longer has direct access to Ministers, and that the reports which he makes pass through several hands before they reach the Home Secretary and the Cabinet. The Home Secretary made a statement Lo the House the other day, the general tone of which was that he had received no report of a warning that the life of Sir Henry Wilson was threatened. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very definite question. Did he, or did he not, receive any document referring to an attempt that might he made against the life of Sir Henry Wilson? I was aware of the fact that all reports did not reach the Home Secretary, and for that reason on Friday last I asked a supplementary question of the Lord Privy Seal, after he had announced that, the Government had taken all measures for the protection of life and property and for general security in London and elsewhere. I asked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government would call for all reports and take action on such of them as might justify action. I was careful to say "all reports," because that is really the essence of the matter.
I wish to go a little further into this tragic occasion. I am not trying to make any capital out of the emotion we all feel, but to arrive, if I can, at some explanation of the facts which led to the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson when he was not under any protection whatever. The Home Secretary stated that some weeks previously to the 22nd June
police protection had been withdrawn from all Ministers except the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I ask the Home Secretary if he will be precise and say on what date that protection was withdrawn?

Mr. SHORTT: I will give that date. I explained that my memory had been at fault when I answered the question, and I had had no time to look it up. It. was the 23rd January.

Colonel GRETTON: There was no police protection of any Minister, except the Chief Secretary for Ireland, between the 23rd January and the 22nd June?

Mr. SHORTT: With the exception of about three days, during which the Colonial Secretary, in consequence of a suggested threat, and I myself, in consequence of a similar threat, were under protection. With that exception there was no police protection during the period named.

Colonel GRETTON: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for making that statement. We have all observed that for some considerable period barriers have been erected in Downing Street. A noticeable number of police have been guarding those barriers, and there have generally been some plain clothes men in addition. I, and the majority of hon. Members, pass constantly down Whitehall every week, and we see that state of things prevailing. I think the Home Secretary would make a further exception and say that there is special police protection given to Downing Street by the barriers erected there.

Mr. SHORTT: Oh, yes.

Colonel GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman did not state that the other day. I want to ask another question with regard to the release of all prisoners who were convicted during last year of violent assaults upon the police, and, in some cases, of shooting. Will he give definitely the date when that release took place? No doubt this Debate will go on for a little time, and so the information can be obtained. Does the Home Secretary deny that he received any warning whatsoever that the life of Sir Henry Wilson was threatened? If he did not receive such a warning, clearly there is something wrong. My information is that more than one warning was given. In any remarks which I may make I am not in any way
blaming the police, or those who carry out the police work, either as executive officers or in the Intelligence Branch. I believe they are entirely loyal, and that they are diligent and efficient. It is important, however, that we should ascertain how it is that there has been this deplorable failure in the information reaching the Minister responsible for the safety of life in this country and in London.
If the police are not efficient, as I have said I believe they are, then the Home Secretary is responsible for that inefficiency in the organisation. If they are efficient, if they had this information, and if it has not reached him, then it is absolutely necessary to explore the reason why it did not reach the right hon. Gentleman. There is clearly something very wrong, and I therefore press these questions with all the force at my command. I hope he will.be able to give such replies as will entirely clear up what is at present a mystery to most of us.

Vice-Admiral Sir R. HALL: During the Debate on Monday the Home Secretary quoted from a letter or report from Sir Basil Thomson of the 4th October. The right hon. Gentleman quoted him as saying:
If the Irish negotiations do not break down we might certainly reduce protection with safety."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1922; col. 1777, Vol. 155.]
The Home Secretary added that he further said that the question should be raised again in a month. Sir Basil Thomson is in no position to defend himself, but it is only fair that another side of the question should be put forward. Sir Basil Thomson, when he made the report that he did, showed an extraordinary accuracy in his forecast. Since 4th October to 22nd June so far as I know no outrages had taken place on public or prominent persons, but since 4th October—and it will surely be within the recollection of the Committee—different circumstances had arisen. A new personality had joined this House, a great personality who took a great part in the present state of politics, and felt strongly on one particular subject. I suggest it would have been fairer to a great public servant like Sir Basil Thomson, if the Home Secretary, after quoting his opinion of 4th October, had been able to assure the Committee that he had again consulted him in view of the
changed circumstances, and the advent of a new personality. Had he done so he might have received advice from an officer whose advice and forecast had been proved to be extraordinarily accurate.
As regards the Intelligence Service I, for one, do not propose to proceed into any details, but just to confine my remarks to the Secret Service, the essence of which is secrecy. But there are con siderations which this Committee, I think, might turn over in their mind for a minute or two. After all, we do pay a fairly large sum for our Secret Service, and I say that it is an extraordinarily able, well-conducted, and reliable Service. We listened on Monday to the defence of the Home Secretary, the burden of whose argument was that he could not have known what was likely to take place in respect to prominent persons: he had no information. There are two points which arise here. If he had no information it is a very extraordinary thing. May I point out to the Committee that the tragic event which took place last week was carried out by two men, one of them in the Public Service, living quietly in London, apparently, and with no connection, so far as we can see, with anyone outside this country. I suggest that the first thing that that brings to one's mind is that these two men must have been in close touch, and under the control of a local centre. Otherwise I fail to see how the dastardly outrage could have been carried out. If there was a local centre with powerful control of, apparently, two respectable men, our Secret Service ought to have known of it. They must have known something of it. There must have been some information in the office on the night of the outrage.
A very remarkable process was carried out. Many houses raided, documents were seized, and some persons arrested. Is this Committee to understand that between the murder of the late Field-Marshal and the time of the raids that that information was received? That is a question which the Committee is entitled to ask. If that information was not received between those times, then it was in possession of the Home Secretary prior to the murder; and if prior to the murder why was it not acted upon, and did it require the loss of a valuable life to take action? This point I am putting to the
Committee is quite vital to the Service. We may rightly draw the conclusion that this information on which the raids were based was in possession of the Home Office or Scotland Yard on the night of the murder. If that was so, how are we to reconcile that with the statement that the Home Office had no information? A situation like this makes one begin to doubt about the organisation of the Secret Service—no, not the organisation of the Service, but of the office, and whether or not it is as good as it ought to be. There must be some hiatus. There must be some hand which controls the use of that information and which pre- vented it being used. Whose was the hand which stopped the information being used? We saw how vital it was on the night of the murder, and not be-fore! To all these questions this Committee is entitled to have an answer.
I do not propose to deal further with that, but I have one final remark to make. The man responsible for the safety of property and life in this country is the Home Secretary. In the defence put forward on Monday shelter was taken beneath the cloak of Sir Basil Thomson, a cloak which I venture to say the right hon. Gentleman had no right to use. We listened to the defence of the Home Secretary put forward by the Colonial Secretary, the defence against charges which have never been levelled on the Floor of this House, but were charges and insinuations which had only appeared in the public Press so far as I know. The important fact to my mind is this: the Colonial Secretary in his defence of the charges levelled in the public Press did not refer to one charge which stated that on the night. of the murder, when the public had the right to expect that the officer of the Government responsible for life and property in this country would be closely associated with officers attending to their duty in a matter of this sort, he was seen in Court dress at a private party. I do not wonder the Colonial Secretary did not attempt to deal with that matter. I want again to emphasise the hiatus between our wonderful police organisation and executive action.

Mr. WALLACE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just resumed his seat has some claim to speak on the subject of naval intelligence, especially seeing that during the War he conducted a
great Department with conspicuous ability. May I, however, be allowed to say that he has not either shown the same ability or good taste in the speech which he has just delivered to the House. Life in this House would be found to be intolerable if the private functions which hon. and right hon. Gentleman attend at various times are to be a matter, not only for discussion in the Press, but in the House. I think it was altogether unworthy of the hon. and gallant Admiral to make, in which was otherwise a speech of quite legitimate criticism, a reference to the Home Secretary in his private capacity, to which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has a complete answer.
I think it is very unfortunate and regrettable that the terrible tragedy which occurred on Thursday of last week should be employed as party capital in this House, or that any attempt should be made to fasten upon the shoulders of the Home Secretary the responsibility for that dreadful event. We know in this House that the Home Office is always peculiarly liable to attack. The administration of justice is always open to attack, and my right hon. Friend has not been an exception in this respect to his predecessors in office. Knowing, as Members of Parliament, these facts regarding the Home Office, it ought to make us all the more careful about accepting out ideas from the Press, which on various matters becomes more or less hysterical. I protest most vehemently against the attacks, upon the Home Secretary in this House-and in the Press, and I am quite at a loss either to understand or to appreciate them. It is not the first time that personal hosility to my knowledge has been shown in this House.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. Gentleman in order imputing motives to hon. Members of this House?

The CHAIRMAN: Nothing has been said that is out of order.

Mr. WALLACE: I am not imputing motives, I am only attempting to state the facts to the Committee. This is not the first evidence we have had of this hostility to the Home Secretary in this House. An old Debate has been resurrected to-night both by my hon. Friend and by the hon. and gallant Vice-Admiral. Let us take our minds back to
that Debate. It had reference to the retirement of Sir Basil Thomson. I remember distinctly that the Home Secretary on that occasion proved conclusively that his critics had based their case upon a distortion of facts. That night he completely vindicated his position before the House.
A few weeks ago we had another Press and Parliamentary campaign, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had decided to commit Ronald True to a criminal lunatic asylum. Then again he proved that the case of the critics rested upon an abyssmal ignorance of the law of the country. It is time these attacks ceased and that we should observe some sort of relevance in our criticism of a Minister of the Crown. I wonder whether his critics in this House to-night realise how serious is the task and how momentous is the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. Has it ever occurred to them—I am amazed to find that the hon. and gallant Admiral does not realise this fact—what ceaseless care he has to give to the protection of life and property in this country.

Sir R. HALL: That is his duty.

Mr. WALLACE: I know it is his duty, but he has carried it out. The best proof of that fact is the practical immunity which this country enjoys as a result of the precautionary and preventive measures taken by the Home Secretary. I think it most unfair that that fact is not recognised by the critics of the Home Office. I have no hesitation in saying that if the history of the Home Secretary's administration during a time of unexampled difficulty and unrest could be written, beginning if you like with the difficulties of the police strike itself, we in this House to-night would not be criticising the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but we should rather be congratulating him upon the way he has discharged his duty. I think it is only right in a matter of this kind that one should state one's opinions quite frankly. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend below me upon the restraint he displayed in his attack which was in pleasant contrast to some of the comments made in this House last week and certainly to some of the criticisms in the Press. I am perfectly sure that the Home Secretary has a complete reply to
all the criticisms which have been made in this Debate, and when this discussion concludes I think it will be found that in the discharge of his duties at the Home Office he has acquitted himself with distinction and in a manner which will command the unanimous approval and sincere congratulation of every hon. Member of this House.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I wish to take strong exception to the remark made by the hon. Member who has just sat down in imputing motives by saying that we were actuated by personal hostility to the Home Secretary because we have been attacking him in his official capacity. We are not attacking him personally, and I resent the imputation that I have any personal hostility to the right hon. Gentleman. In attacking him on a matter of public policy, we are only doing our duty as Members of this House. Owing to a curious concatenation of circumstances, the warning—I believe there was more than one warning—given in March to Scotland Yard, which I saw myself, was disregarded, and we are told that it was not brought to the notice of the Home Secretary himself. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was brought to his notice at the time. I do not think it was, because, in alluding to it, he said:
The warning is this typewritten document. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not able to tell who took it to Scotland Yard, to whom it was given in Scotland Yard, or whether any explanation was given to Scotland Yard about its source.
The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that I could not possibly give the source or tell him why it was not signed, because such things cannot be spoken about in this House, and the details could not be given to anyone except in the strictest confidence. I told the right hon. Gentleman before the Debate that I had seen a copy of that document, and I also told him that I asked my informant whether it had been sent to Scotland Yard, and he said it had. I think, under these circumstances, it was rather strange that the right hon. Gentleman should cast this scorn upon that document. What I say is that Scotland Yard was warned and did not take sufficient notice, and that is the reason why I attacked the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman
the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) that the reason for this is because of the reconstruction of the Department at Scotland Yard by his advice, because the chief of that special branch used to have direct access to Ministers, and when Sir Basil Thomson left the chief of that Department was placed under the Chief Commissioner of Police, and he consequently no longer has direct access to the Cabinet and the Home Office. If Sir Basil Thomson had been in charge of that Department, and such a warning had come to his notice, he would have told the right hon. Gentleman about it, and then it would, at any rate, probably have attracted more notice. During the questions and answers on this question on Friday of last week, the Lord Privy Seal made a statement about Sir Basil Thomson which I thought was most unfair and ungenerous, and to do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not believe he would have made that statement if he had not been stung by a supplementary question. The Lord Privy Seal said:
The hon. Member has alluded to Sir Basil Thomson. My hon. and gallant Friend must have a short memory if he does not remember the serious murders and outrages which took place during the time of Sir Basil Thomson without a single person being arrested.
I gave the Lord Privy Seal notice that I was bringing this forward, and I am sorry to hear that he is ill, but I wish to clear Sir Basil Thomson from an imputation which is quite unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. Sir Basil Thomson was chief of the special branch of Scotland Yard when the Sinn Feiners were active, not only in Ireland, but in this country as well, and far from not having arrested a single person, Sir Basil Thomson's special branch arrested a good many people, and some of them were brought to justice. I have here a list of eight men who were all given periods of penal servitude after conviction ranging from four years to twelve years, and averaging ten years' penal servitude.
One was the Wandsworth case, and in that case it will be remembered that a number of Sinn Feiners tried to set fire to the Vacuum Oil Company's stores, and the fire which might have resulted would have caused an enormous damage in London, and might have caused much loss of life. In addition to this, they also fired at the police. These men were caught and they were sentenced to eight
and ten years' penal servitude, and Mr. Justice Lush, in acquitting one of the four men, complimented the police officers concerned on their admirable conduct. Another case occurred at Bromley on the night of a great many different outrages which took place all over London, when signal boxes were set on fire, on the 16th June last year. On that occasion a lot of Sinn Feiners were in a taxi. They were armed, and were going out to cut telegraph wires. Two police constables stopped them. One of them was armed, rind the men escaped out of the taxi owing to a ruse. They fired at the police four times and the constable fired at them ten times, and succeeded in wounding two of them, and one of them, a young man, was captured by these two policemen, and all the rest of the men escaped.
The Lord Privy Seal said that the Criminal Investigation Department did not make any arrests, but the remainder of the men implicated in this case were all arrested by 10 o'clock the next morning. This affair occurred at 11.15 at night, and by 10 o'clock next morning all these men had been arrested entirely owing to the work of the Special Branch of Scotland Yard. There were other cases in which the men were arrested and brought to justice owing to the very skilful work of this Special Branch. What has happened to these men? In all these cases they were convicted of attempting arson, destruction of property, and shooting at the police. I think the Committee and the country will be surprised to hear that the men convicted of such crimes in this country have all been released. They were released in February last. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] May I ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Wallace) if he approves of the release of these men?

Mr. WALLACE: Unlike the hon. and gallant Member, I never decide a case until I have heard both sides.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I have heard both sides.

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a statement of fact. The men were convicted of shooting at the police. They were sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, and they were let out after a few months' imprisonment. That is a statement of fact. [An HON. MEMBER: "The sentences were too heavy!"]

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: The sentences were not too heavy, and that was not the reason given by the Home Secretary, who stated that they were released in February last in pursuance of the amnesty for Irish political prisoners prior to the truce. I wish to call attention to the pusillanimous and pestiferous poltroonery of a policy which actually releases men who have committed those crimes.

The CHAIRMAN: ; That phrase is really not Parliamentary.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I was only applying it to the policy. I say it is poltroonery to release these men after they have been shooting at the police and call it a political crime. It is this policy which leads to murders like that of Sir Henry Wilson. I may point out in that connection that there is a body of men styling themselves the Irish Self-Determination League still in existence in London, and very active carrying out meetings. In nearly every case where these men were proved to be guilty of arson and attempted murder it was shown that they were connected with the Irish Self-Determination League. I would like to know what the Home Secretary is doing to curb the activities of this disloyal organisation. Now that Southern Ireland has been given Dominion Home Rule what need is there for this organisation here in London, poisoning the minds of our people with their seditious propaganda? I wish to urge the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to take some steps to protest to the Provisional Government in Ireland against the continued persecution of loyalists, whether they are Catholics, Protestants, Englishmen, Welshmen, or Ulstermen, who are settled in Ireland. At the present time anybody who is loyal in Ireland is being driven out and threatened with death and robbery, and I think it is time the Government told the Provisional Government that if this sort of thing goes on we shall have to begin to inquire whether in the public services, or under the London County Council or Municipal Authorities there are disloyal Irish—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to discuss the state of Ireland on this Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: No, it is not.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I am talking about the Irish Self-Determination League, and I say that these disloyal scoundrels are being allowed to poison the minds of our people whilst loyalists are being driven out of Ireland, and I ask the Home Secretary to see that these men are deported to Ireland instead of being allowed to take the bread out of the mouths of the unemployed people here in London. That is the connection between the question of Ireland and the Vote we are discussing. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to exercise the greatest care about this Irish Self-Determination League. It was proved to be guilty of conspiracy in the cases of these men who used firearms, and, incidentally, I may mention that some of the men who used firearms had had the tops of the bullets sawn off in order to convert them into dum-dum bullets so as to make more certain of mangling the police. This poisonous association of people ought to be stamped out. It should not be allowed to exist one moment longer, and the heads of it should be arrested. It is a monstrous thing, after England has made the sacrifices she has made, after we have given Ireland this enormous boon of Dominion Home Rule, a policy with which I, of course, entirely disagreed, it is a monstrous thing, I say, to allow these people to go about this country preaching sedition in every direction. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to use every power he has to stop the disloyal propaganda of this association in this country.

Mr. SHORTT: A good deal of the Debate which we have listened to to-night has been really a repetition of what took place a few nights ago. First, I would deal with the allegations with regard to the organisation of the Secret Service.

Colonel GRETTON: I made no allegations whatsoever with regard to the organisation of the Secret Service. Indeed, I went out of my way to say that I knew nothing against it. What I did refer to were certain defects by which the chief of the Intelligence Department no longer had access to Ministers.

Mr. SHORTT: And with regard to that, my hon. Friend is absolutely and entirely wrong. There has been no change in that respect. The official
responsible for the dissemination of information and knowledge has an absolute right of access to me at once without any delay of any sort. With regard to what has been said about Sir Basil Thompson, I do not think we need go into that question again. It was threshed out the other night. Comparisons between one period and another are not always fair, and they are certainly useless. There were 43 outrages in and around London in the first six months of 1921, and in four cases the criminals were caught. I think Sir Basil Thompson's record; considering his difficulties, was good, but I assert that there is no inferiority in the present régime. If there is any change at all, it is for the better, and it is in the direction of greater efficiency. I was asked a question as to whether I received any report of the intended attempt against Sir Henry Wilson? I have already stated that I did not receive any such report. Two hon. Members have spoken about warnings, and I presume they are both alluding to the same warning.

Colonel GRETTON: No, my information is not the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury.

Mr. SHORTT: I have no knowledge of any warning such as that referred to by the hon. Gentlemen, and I cannot possibly ask about it because my hon. and gallant Friend gave me no particulars. He did not say whether it was in writing or whether it was verbal, and there is no way in which, therefore, it could be identified, otherwise I would have every possible inquiry made in order to ascertain what happened about it. With regard to the warning alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee), it was absolutely anonymous, and we have been unable to trace any word of it in the Department. It did not contain, as I understand, the slightest information as to its source. One could not call it a warning. We get such documents by the thousand. I have been asked as to the date when certain prisoners were released. The pre-Truce prisoners were released on the 11th February; the post-Truce prisoners on the 1st April. They were released by Cabinet decision as part of a general policy of amnesty in respect of all crimes corn-mated with a political motive. I do not understand the meaning of the words,
"political crimes," but I do understand the meaning of the phrase "crimes committed with a political motive." There was a general policy of amnesty for these cases. It has been discussed in this House. It has been condemned and defended here more than once, and I think that possibly the House would not desire me to take up any more of its time. It is sufficient for me to remind it that these releases were part of a general policy.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: But this is the first occasion that we found out these particular men had been released. Nobody knew it before.

Mr. SHORTT: That surprises me very much. The fact was certainly common knowledge, and I am very much surprised there should be any Member of this House who did not know about the release or who was not aware of the release of all prisoners under this amnesty both in Ireland and in this country. I have been asked, also, about the raids that took place directly after the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson, and I have further been asked for information as to raids before and after that terrible event. If the information asked for is information about the persons and individuals who constituted either the Irish Self-Determination League or any other Trish body in this country, I may say at once we have bad those names all along. One would imagine, after hearing the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that there had never before been any raids in London on these Irish persons. Raids were constantly taking place. We constantly raided them before the Truce under the Act for restoring peace to Ireland. We have always known of the existence of the Irish Self-Determination League, and we have taken the greatest care not only to watch the general headquarters, but also the rooms occupied by individuals taking a leading part in the organisation. Scotland Yard could tell anyone who were the leading men and what they were doing at particular times. Of course, we did not raid them every night, but when anything occurred which we thought might afford an opportunity of gaining information we made a raid as speedily as possible. I think I have dealt with all the matters raised in this Debate. These question have been debated on previous occasions, and therefore there is no necessity for me to take up further time in discussing them.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I should like to ask as to the system adopted in regard to these releases. Were the prisoners granted a ticket-of-leave or anything of that kind, or did they get the King's pardon?

Mr. SHORTT: There was no question of the King's pardon at all. They were let out in the ordinary way by the shortening of their sentences.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Has the Home Office statutory authority to cancel sentences?

Mr. SHORTT: There was no question of cancelling sentences, but of course we have the right to advise the King to reduce them.

Colonel Sir C. YATE: I would like to ask as to the cases of the men convicted of stealing rifles from the Irish Guards. A sergeant and two other Irishmen were so convicted of that, offence. The right hon. Gentleman has said that everybody ought to have known of the release of the prisoners. But we never heard of the release of these particular men until I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day, and he then acknowledged that they were released in April. In that case—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and gallant Baronet wishes to ask a question on the point. He can do so, but it is not in order for him to make a speech on the subject.

Sir C. YATE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman under what category the case of the sergeant came? It was a case in which military discipline was concerned. Was this sergeant, for instance, who was serving in the Guards, released as having committed a crime for a political motive?

Mr. SHORTT: The fact that he was a soldier did not remove him from the jurisdiction of the civil authorities. This man was convicted and sentenced by a civil court, and in the ordinary course, with other prisoners in the same category, he had his sentence reduced.

Viscount WOLMER: And is he now serving in the Army?

Mr. MOSLEY: The Home Secretary on this occasion has failed entirely in my view in meeting the gravamen of the charge against his Department, namely,
that they did not afford that adequate police protection to Sir Henry Wilson which the circumstances of the case evidently demanded. In the course of this Debate questions have been raised not entirely relevant to that issue and hon. Members have discussed at some length the release of prisoners who were convicted of crimes for a political motive. I cannot see that in this particular event that type of man was as likely to commit a crime of this nature as those actually engaged in the struggle now raging, particularly in the North of Ireland. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment discussed at some length the question of whether or not the Home Secretary had received warnings that the life of Sir Henry Wilson was threatened. I think the Home Secretary would have been right even if he had received such warnings, not to attach too great an importance to them, for anyone who has been actively engaged in the Irish controversy during the last few years must have received scores of such threats, and it must he an accident of life if the man who intends to shoot one, takes the precaution of giving warning of his intention. I cannot see, therefore, that this question of warning is important to the issue which we are now debating.
8.0 P.M.
I do feel, however, that the Department of the right hon. Gentleman is gravely culpable on general grounds. After all, it is the business of an efficient police force to operate effectively without warning and advice from extraneous sources. It is the business of a Department such as the Home Office to foresee and to forestall within reasonable limits the motives and the movements of crime. The right hon. Gentleman, in the last Debate, argued that it was right not to protect Sir Henry Wilson because protection had been with-drawn from Ministers, but the cases are in no way similar. Ministers were protected, and very closely protected, throughout the period when they were engaged in active measures for the maintenance of order in Ireland, and some of them it was found necessary to protect even after that. Sir Henry Wilson, during the last few months, was in precisely the same position which Ministers occupied during that previous period when they were so rigorously guarded. What was his position? He was, as I understand, military adviser to the Government of Northern
Ireland, a Government which was engaged in a very desperate struggle to maintain order in its territory under preculiarly difficult circumstances, and that Government, and Sir Henry Wilson as their adviser, were of necessity involved in measures which would excite the most bitter animosity, and in many cases the most deep-rooted desire for vengeance and counter-action of a criminal nature.
If the Home Secretary and his advisers had reflected for a moment on the peculiar position which Sir Henry Wilson occupied, they must have realised that he would be the first object for any measure of criminal revenge on the part of any section of the population in Belfast who entertained such a desire. They must have realised that such men would be animated by the conception that, in striking at Sir Henry Wilson, they would be striking a most effective blow at those whom they considered to be their enemies. They would, further, have reflected that Sir Henry Wilson was the most outstanding and capable figure of those who were advocating the reconquest of Southern Ireland, and was one who must inevitably draw down upon his head the first assassin's stroke of any felon who desired to prevent the effective speech of a political opponent. Sir Henry Wilson was in precisely the same position that Ministers occupied when they took Bach great precautions for the preservation of their own safety.
The right hon. Gentleman, also in the last Debate, said that Ministers were more likely to be assassinated, even under present conditions, than was Sir Henry Wilson, for the reason that the assassination of a Minister of the Crown might lead to the scrapping of the Treaty. Surely, the animosity of those elements in Southern Ireland would, in present circumstances, be directed, not against Ministers of the Crown in this country, but against those who were responsible, in their view, for what they feel to be an act of treachery towards the cause which they have espoused, and who have now undertaken the greatest burden of preserving order in that country. The attacks of such men would, in present circumstances, be concentrated, not on Ministers of the Crown in this country, who are fading out of the picture, but on those who now
occupy those onerous positions in connection with the preservation of order in that country. In the same way, crime in Northern Ireland would be directed, not against Ministers in this country, who have ceased to be responsible, but against those prominent figures within the ranks of the Northern Government who are responsible for the preservation of law and order and for the measures which have to be taken to that end. Of all these men, Sir Henry Wilson must inevitably have been the one most marked down for destruction by the assassins. Any occurrence in Northern Ireland which excited the fury and rage of any determined section of the population, would, naturally, be directed against him. His speeches, again, in regard to the position in the South of Ireland must have incurred a considerable measure of danger from those who took the contrary opinion, and who are inured to the weapons of political murder.
It is almost inconceivable that a Department whose business it is to pre-judge the issues of crime, to foresee the motives and the movements of the criminal classes, should not have foreseen that Sir Henry Wilson must inevitably be a mark for any crime of a political character or committed from a blind desire for vengeance; and, as we all know, it is the latter category of crime—that of revenge on the part of a man who is animated by a desire to strike back at the authority which has repressed his criminal motives—which is most dangerous to the figure responsible for such measures; for there a type of criminal has been produced who is indifferent to his own safety, who is only desirous of striking his blow, and is comparatively indifferent to what happens subsequently. A man such as that is almost the most dangerous assailant who can set out upon a. mission of murder, and it was to criminals of that kind that Sir Henry Wilson was most conspicuously exposed. The right hon. Gentleman, in my view, is not culpable on the grounds which have been advanced in this Debate, of disregarding to a large extent the mere warning which was advanced, or on those wider questions of policy which have been raised. He was, in my view, most gravely to blame in that it was the elementary duty of his Department to foresee the commission of crime of this nature, and to award a measure of safety to a man who, more than any other man of his day, was
conspicuously threatened with the prospect of an appalling disaster such as that which has shocked this country.

Mr. MYERS: I have no desire to join in the criticisms which have been urged against the right hon. Gentleman, much less to bring an indictment against the police administration of this country; but if I did not at the outset make some brief reference to an incident which is reported in the Press to-day, in connection with the administration of our police service, should not be doing justice to my conscience. There is a report in the Press to-day of the arrest by the police of a, man who was actually arrested while he was at the mortuary identifying the bodies of his wife and two children. The woman had committed suicide in the Thames, taking her two children to death with her, and it is established that that act was due to a condition of poverty in the household which the man had endeavoured to soften by committing a theft; and, while he was in process of identifying those who had left him, he was arrested by the police on a charge of theft and hauled before the Court, from which he had to be carried by two policemen. If the facts are as recorded, it seems to me to he an exceedingly inhuman incident. If they are not as recorded, they Ought to he denied. If the statement that is contained in to-day's Press has any semblance of truth in it, I suggest that it is discreditable to the police force of this or any other country, and to the administration that is responsible for it.
The Amendment that we have on the Paper, to reduce the Vote by £100, that has been put down for the purpose of ensuring a discussion upon, or at least of drawing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to, the administration of the juvenile courts and the probation officers in the country. The Act of Parliament which set up those juvenile courts and probation officers dates back to 1908, and those with whom I am associated in the House have come to the conclusion that, after the experience that has been gained and the work that has been done in this direction, the time has come when the whole situation should be reviewed in the light of that experience. It is a remarkable fact that from the year 1908, when the Act was passed, to the
year 1918, the cases which came before the courts of summary jurisdiction in this country steadily declined, the figure for 1918 being just over half the number of cases which were before the Courts in 1908. During that same period, there has been an ever-increasing tendency for the Courts of the country to submit more of the cases which came before them to these juvenile Courts, While the total number of cases which came before the Courts has diminished, the proportion of cases taken to juvenile Courts has been increasing. We look upon that tendency as a very healthy one, and one of which we heartily approve. It is a significant fact, however, that in 1919, the first year in which there was an upward tendency in the number of cases which came before the Courts, the percentage of cases put on probation was the lowest in any year since the passing of the Act. There are those who are entitled to speak with authority who say that the diminution in crime which has taken place during the last 12 or 14 years has been very largely due to the fact that more cases have been brought before the juvenile Courts. On the same lines, the upward tendency in crime in 1919 might be a coincidence, but at least it is a fact that that lesser percentage is coincident with the greater volume of crime in the country.
No one who is acquainted with the administration of our juvenile Courts has any wish or desire to limit their activities, but we believe it to be necessary that they should be put upon a more substantial footing, and that the whole principle of putting offenders on probation should be stabilised. We are not prepared to claim that either juvenile Courts or probation officers are a specific remedy for crime. We believe that the operation of these two forces has not only in the past set many a first offender on his feet, but has also set many going in the direction of a better condition of things in later life. To support that point of view we have before us the Report of the Departmental Committee, which has recently issued a report upon this question of probation officers. It says:
The conclusion to which we have come on the representations made to us, is that many Courts, including Courts of Quarter Sessions, could with greater advantage use probation procedure much more freely than
they do at present and that every Court should have the service of a probation officer at its disposal, so that probation orders can be made when the circumstances render Inch a course desirable.

Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. May I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment? The Debate is going very far from the reasons for which that reduction was put down.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): I am afraid that cannot be suggested at this stage while the hon. Member is speaking.

Mr. MYERS: Despite the pronouncement of the Departmental Committee, we are confronted with the fact that out of 1,034 Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Wales ther are still 215 which have taken no step whatever with reference to the appointment of a probation officer, and in those cases where the work has been undertaken by the Courts, in many instances it is carried out in a very perfunctory fashion. The Report, to which I have referred, mentions the fact that in some cases probation officers have 70 to 100 cases under their charge. Two men are stated to have 124 and 131 cases, respectively. In one large borough the average number of cases for each officer amounts to 100, and in one thickly populated county four officers are responsible for 450 cases. We notice cases in which one man is appointed to act for as many as 10 or 12 Courts, and in one county as many as 21 Courts. The Report of the Committee suggests that the work cannot be efficiently carried out by officers who have to distribute their activities over such a wide area. What is the work that these probation officers have to do? The development of these Juvenile Courts has put under the charge of these probation officers a large number of juveniles. I gather from the Report that in 1919 the Juvenile Courts dealt with over 40,000 juvenile offenders, and that over 4,000 were placed under the probation officers, and in addition to that, 5,500 adults were similarly dealt with. There were nearly 10,000 cases in the country under probation, about half of which were juveniles. That work is exceedingly responsible work, and the time has come, having regard to the fact that many of these Courts have probation officers who are ex-policemen, and Court missionaries, fulfilling all sorts of functions, and
having regard to the experience of the last 12 or 14 years, when we should systematise the work.
One argument which is hurled against every proposal in this House when any improvement in any public service is asked for is, what it is going to cost in £ s. d.? Anticipating that argument, I have gone into this question of the cost of these probation officers. I find that with nearly 10,000 cases on probation in 1019 something like £26,000 was expended, and, striking an average, it costs the country about 1s. a week per case. When we consider that it costs something like £70 a year to maintain a boy or girl in a reformatory, and that, according to the prison report which has just been issued, it costs £121 a year to maintain an inmate in a local prison, and £166 a year to maintain an inmate in a convict prison, there is some justification for believing that by extending and stiffening up the work these probation officers undertake we could save, taking the long view, in the times ahead of us, a considerable sum in prison administration. I think it can be demonstrated. It is urged by the Howard association and similar bodies that the work of the probation officers has enabled large numbers of people to avoid contact with the prison system. I have said that in many areas the work of the probation officer is combined with other functions. When probation officers were first instituted the effort was to a very large extent voluntary. Much voluntary work is put in even now, and I am the last to deprecate even voluntary activities in this direction. But like many other services, which at their inception were based on voluntary effort, we have lived to see the time come when the whole administration of the service has outgrown voluntary effort, and while we may welcome voluntary effort, the time has come when it should be lifted above either the occasional or the voluntary work or the perfunctory system which at present prevails. A wider responsibility is necessary. The probation officer has not only to take up an individual. He often has to hold him up, and very frequently to set him going in addition, and unless the system of probation carries out that function it loses very largely the virtue that is claimed for it.
What do we propose should be done? We have again to fall hack upon the
report of the Departmental Committee, and they have recommended that a small Advisory Committee should be appointed. It should be a central authority under the Home Office. It should consist of 10 or 12 members, including representatives of magistrates, local authorities, probation officers, and other persons specially experienced and interested in this work. We agree with the setting up of such a committee. We are advised by those associations which are entitled to speak upon the matter that if such a committee were set up there should be co-opted upon it a representative of industrial organisations and that we should not go past the claims of working women to a place on such an advisory committee, acting in a national capacity. On the other hand, we urge that no court in the country ought to be without its probation officer. Fourteen years after the inception of the Act, we find that 215 courts have made no provision for a probation officer, and that that ought to be remedied by the Home Office at the earliest opportunity. We would maintain the system of local appointment of probation officers, but in order to bring into this work the ability which is necessary, and the particular temperament which is desirable, we would remove the appointments to a very large extent from the channels in which the appointments are now made, and remove the circumstances which compel certain considerations to be acted upon, and by some measure of financial support from the Exchequer assist these appointments getting into those avenue which would bring to this service the people most adapted for the work.
The benefit and advantages of the operation of the juvenile courts and probation officer are well understood. The procedure which makes in the direction of prevention is better than remedies and penalties. Having regard to the cost of the operation, from the point of view of pounds, shillings, and pence, the preventive aspect of the case is infinitely cheaper than the application of the penalty. The Departmental Committee say:
Probation, when applied in suitable cases, has frequently proved successful in producing a real change in the moral attitude of persons brought before the Court restoring their self-respect and enabling them to take their place as decent and law-abiding citizens.
That, in our judgment, is a very definite recommendation from people who were specially charged to investigate this particular matter. In the past, it is unfortunate, but it is true, the placing of offenders on probation has often been attempted when all other agencies have failed. The putting of an offender on probation should be the first step, and not a step taken when others have been attempted and have failed. We maintain that it should not be a temporary matter or voluntary or occasional in its operation, but that we should systematise the whole procedure of juvenile courts and probation officers, going further, and giving it a permanent part in the public administration of the country. We believe that both from the moral and the material point of view our claim can be justified. From the material point of view it would save the country large sums of money, nipping crime in the bud in its early stages, and making unnecessary the larger expenditure entailed in connection with our gaols and prisons in later years.
There is a greater moral effect, and that is that here and there this system picks up a person who has fallen into some avenue of crime, very often a minor offence, and by stopping an avenue of that sort, and directing the offender into better walks of life, a great advantage would accrue. The report of the Departmental Committee by no means comes up to our expectations, and we do not by any manner of means feel satisfied. We believe that even if the findings of the Departmental Committee were carried, out that they would not meet the needs of the situation in these days, but they would go a long way. We ask the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to take into consideration the whole question of probation officers in this country and their relations to juvenile courts, and whether he will systematise and stabilise their work in order that the proved advantage of the system, even under the existing unsatisfactory conditions, can be so directed and applied that it would bring greater benefits to the community in the years to come.

Colonel GRETTON: The Debate has now passed far from the reasons which induced me to move the reduction now before the Committee, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I wish that in these days of Supply each Government Department would follow the precedent that is usually followed by most Departments of making a definite statement as to the progress of their Department during the past year. That is always done with regard to the Army, the Navy, the Colonial Office and the India Office Votes. It is just as important that the House of Commons should know what progress the Home Office has made during the year as that they should know what has been done in any other Department. We should have had, in that case, an admirable review from the Home Secretary, with a statement of what the Home Office intend to do about the report with which my hon. Friend has just dealt with such great ability. We should have had a report as to the reasons which led the Home Secretary to deal with such startling difference between the cases of Jacoby and True. We should have had, I hope, some explanations why it was found necessary for many weeks to put the convict Conmy, at Parkhurst, in chains, in a mediaeval manner, because he broke gaol. We should have had, perhaps, a statement of what the Home Secretary intends to do in the case of ex-Inspector Syme, because the country is getting rather tired of this perpetual process of putting a man in gaol for five days, then letting him out for five days, which process has gone on for the last three months. In the old days, when a woman had been dealt with under the Cat and Mouse Act, she was set free. I think the time has almost come in the case of ex-Inspector Syme. It cannot redound to the credit. of the Home Office or of our judicial system that ex-Inspector Syme should ultimately die in prison of starvation. His health must now be seriously undermined. The man is, obviously, irrational from the particular point of his grievance, and he might quite well be excused the remainder of his sentence, simply on the ground that his sentence has been more than worked out, if you take into account the time he has been in gaol and the time he has been out of gaol.
All these things would have been dealt with admirably if we had had a statement from the Home Secretary. Unfortunately, the Home Secretary is only in the House when he is being attacked on some par-
ticular subject. Therefore, we do not get a compendious review of the working of his Department. I should like to look at all these Votes from the point of view of what the Labour party might do in that particular Department if they were on the Government Bench instead of on this Bench. I think that it is perhaps the best way in which we can think out the problems which we shall ultimately have to face and see in what direction the conduct of that the present Government can be amended in these particular details. Take Home Office administration. The Home Office is in effect what is in other countries called a ministry of justice. Primary it is the ministry of justice responsible for the justice and prison administration of the whole country, and I would say that, viewed as a ministry of justice the Home Office at the present time is extraordinarily old-fashioned and reactionary in its ideas. The ideal of the, Ministry of Justice should be to keep people out of gaol and not to get people into gaol. The idea should be to attempt, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) said, to rescue the young and the first offenders before they become hardened and habitual, and to enable them to become useful citizens instead of a perpetual burden upon the community.
The position, so far as people in prison are concerned, is growing not better but worse. I do not mean to say that there are more people in prison, but you are getting an increasing callousness as to the people who go to prison. Ten or fifteen years ago there were great movements for first offenders, probationary treatment, children's courts. There was a movement which you do not see to-day. In 1920–21 there were no fewer than 10,200 people in gaol on remand who were not sent back ultimately to gaol. Of course, it is simpler, from the police point of view, to refuse hail and send people to gaol on remand. It is simply because it is easier to keep your hands upon them and to control them. But it is bad business from the point of view of the country, because it costs more and because it tends to create criminals, and it is bad business from the point of view of any of us who love liberty or justice, because it is not right to keep in prison a person who has been guilty of no crime.
The figures are serious enough, but they are getting worse. It is remarkable that while the general admissions into prison have fallen by 62 per cent. since 1913–14, the number of remand prisoners who are not received again in prison after being produced in court has fallen by only 18 per cent. So we get a constantly larger number of persons in prison simply on remand. Mr. Justice Horridge's Committee reported rightly against the growing practice of sending people to gaol on remand, and I have no doubt that the Home Office circularised the justices in the country, but there ought to ho some way of putting more pressure on them than merely by circularising. You have got not merely to work on the justices, but the police have to have their minds changed, and in that direction I think that definite pressure should be brought by the Home Office to produce the results that Mr. Justice Horridge in his report desired to see produced. It is all nonsense to say that the Home Office has done all that it is capable of doing. Reprimands are sometimes better than advice, and, going through these particulars of the different courts and the action which they take, you might get some improvement in the number of cases that are remanded in this way. Then we should keep a lot of innocent people out of prison and prevent a lot of people from contracting the prison habit.
A great deal also can be done by amending the Borstal system. I have always been against a system of indeterminate sentences. I think that when a man is punished he ought to be imprisoned for crime and that his sentence should be definite. When it is a boy in the Western Isles who picks up a pocket book with £15 in it he should be punished for stealing those £15 and not sent to a reformatory for four or five years in order to improve his mind, even if a reformatory would do that. I think it unjust that the punishment should not fit the crime, and that it should be readjusted to what was considered the right method of dealing with youth at that particular period of his life. Magistrates, like other people, are capable of making mistakes. Some of them believe in the Borstal system, some of them think that reformatories do reform, and send cases to reformatories. Others
I imagine believe that reformatories tend rather to turn people who might not be criminals into criminals. But in any case you have an injustice if for a small definite crime a very long period of imprisonment, or what amounts to imprisonment is given. It is a lamentable fact. that in 1920–21 there were sent to prison no fewer than 4,313 young people between the ages of 16 and 18 and 641 were sent to Borstal. There, again, we are again on the horns of dilemma. If we send all these boys and girls to prison they contract the prison habit. They do not reform themselves. They remain more or less under the same influence that originally got them into gaol, and there is very little chance of their recovering. On the other hand—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are now discussing the Home Office Vote? There is a Vote down for prisons on which this subject would be in order, and of course the hon. and gallant Member knows that we cannot question what the Courts of Justice do, and that we can discuss the matter only in so far as the Home Secretary himself is responsible for anything in the administration of his Department.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I was not aware that we were debarred from discussing this matter. If the Home Office want fewer people put into gaol they must take more effective action than they took as the result of Mr. Justice Horridge's report. If they want to work the Borstal system properly they must see that it is possible to combine the Borstal system—I am not criticising it—with short sentences, so that it may be posible to send boys and girls to reformatories, not for periods of more than two years, but for short periods.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is only so far as the Home Secretary can give advice on the policy of short or long sentences in general that would be in order now. We cannot discuss the action of judges in any particular case.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What happened in the case of Mr. Justice Horridge's Committee was that the Home Secretary circularised all the Justices in the direction of that report, urging them to pay attention to the desirability of preventing people who are innocent from being sent to gaol.

Mr. SHORTT: I would not like to tax my memory. I have not the slightest doubt that we probably sent a circular out, not urging, but suggesting that they might well carry out the recommendations, whatever they were. I am afraid I do not remember it, and I could not give an accurate answer off-hand.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Home Secretary can by circular call the attention of benches of Justices to the reports of Committees such as that.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In so far as the Home, Secretary can suggest that, the hon. and gallant Member is in order in discussing it, but not the decisions of judges.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The desirable thing is to keep people out of gaol rather than to get them into gaol. The fact that there are in gaol on remand 10,000 people who do not go back to prison, is a blot on our administration. The Home Office should try to reduce that number, and should try to reduce the number of young people under 21 who go to prison. The only alternative to sending them to prison is to send them to reformatories or industrial schools, and then you run the risk of turning out hardened criminals. The Howard Association believes that the risk would be much less if, instead of sending them for long terms to these institutions, they could be sent for short terms. Then, far more children would go to reformatories instead of to prison. At present many benches of Justices cannot send a boy or girl to a reformatory for four or five years for a small crime, because the punishment would outweigh the crime, and therefore they send them to prison. Take the case of the boy in the Western Isles, who stole He was sent to a reformatory for five years. No doubt it was thought that that was the best way of curing that boy. But it was a frightfully heavy sentence to give for a small offence.

Mr. SHORTT: It does not in the least mean that five years is the actual sentence. In all industrial schools, at Borstal and everywhere else, the cases are constantly being reviewed with a view to letting out the inmates. Many a five years' sentence becomes only six months, and many another only 12 months. The
cases are reviewed constantly with the desire to let the inmates out as soon as it is felt that good has been done.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I know that the question of the indeterminate reformatory sentence is very difficult. I suggest that the policy of an enlightened Ministry of Justice would be to establish something in the nature of a reformatory for short periods, so that you would not have the criminals, who are not criminals at all, mixed up with more hardened offenders who are in for a long term of years. If some of our empty prisons could be used for such a purpose as that, a far larger proportion of the boys and girls who go to these institutions would turn out cured instead of hardened. Turn to the question of probation officers and the treatment of first offenders. It is notorious that between the different towns and benches of justices, there is an enormous difference in the way in which they treat first offenders and use the probation system. The first duty of the Advisory Committee which is recommended in this report should be to call the particular attention of all benches of magistrates to the working of the system in such places as Birmingham, where this system of Children's Courts was started, or in Hull, and to ask for reports as to what they are doing on similar lines. All towns would benefit by being shown what was done in the good places, and all the bad places might be screwed up to the right level. Unfortunately it is impossible to screw up benches to what is the satisfactory probation standard, without money. The Departmental Committee which the Home Office appointed was unfortunately solely a Departmental Committee and its hands were tied. I think its report is excellent. It is obvious, however, that the only way to make the system satisfactory is to get money.
The hon. Member for Spen Valley showed from the financial point of view that it would be a real saving to have a probation officer connected with each of the thousand Courts. If they were paid £300 a year it would be a saving if only four people were kept from gaol. I understand that cases dealt with by the present probation officers—cases that do not re-appear in Court—are 80 per cent. Therefore, the probation system, as far as it goes now, is enormously successful in saving the taxpayers' money. But it
is the Imperial Exchequer that saves the expense. Every boy kept out of Borstal saves the Imperial Exchequer£75 a year. Every person kept out of prison saves nearly £100 a year to the Exchequer. That, however, is not the problem to present itself to a Ministry of Justice. We do not want to give these young first offenders anything but the best possible chance of not becoming criminals. It is in their interests that we want the probation officer. That is a question of money. At present a lot of these probation officers are paid from £5 to £20 a year—sums which are utterly insignificant compared with the work that the officers do and might do. These officers are generally police court missionaries. They are paid by denominational bodies. Some of them do their work very well, though I notice that the Committee report that in some cases the work is not very well done, because the people are not fitted for it.
I do not see why this very important work should not be given to a higher class of people. We have going through all our universities to-day an enormous number of people. Very often they select the job of teacher or something of that sort. I would take these boys and girls of rather superior intelligence and see that some of them were directed to this probation officer work, which is really admirable social work. At present, in many cases ex-policemen or their wives do the work. I do not want to see it solely a matter for various religious denominations. It is a position which requires training and experience and not exactly the sort of experience which the missionary has. I do not want to go toe far at present, but I would say while we have these probation officers, and where their work meets with the approval of the Home Office, by all means keep them on, but let us try to get the standard up, because these probation officers are nearly as important to the future generation as the teachers themselves. I would like to see a real effort made to prevent a growth in the number of criminals by the use of this system. Nearly half the cases dealt with on probation are those of young people under 16. I notice that whereas in one town 43 per cent. of the persons under 21 coming before the magistrate are released on probation, in another place the percentage is as low as 1.7. It cannot be that there is a difference in the
criminals. The difference must be in the respective benches of magistrates.
I would ask the Advisory Committee to draw the attention of the various benches of magistrates to the proportion in every instance as between the number of first offenders and the number of cases treated on probation, particularly those of juveniles, in order that they may see the standard up to which they ought to live. I am a great believer in competition in this way. In the place I am speaking of, where there is only 1.7 per cent. of releases on probation, the birch is frequently used, and 25 per cent. of the juvenile cases treated there came back again before the courts and get into prison. That is obviously a bad place. The name is not given in the Report it is merely indicated by a letter. The bench of magistrates there could be brought up to the scratch wonderfully quickly by pressure of local opinion and by getting into the local papers statistics of the facts concerning that court as compared with the facts concerning neighbouring courts. In that way we could very soon bring about a change in the method of the treatment of offenders in that district. Publicity is the best way to cure all abuses.
Funds should be provided in next year's Budget in order that, without the slightest delay, we may set our system of probation officers on a firm foundation. I have referred to it as a useful financial investment. It is also an enormous moral advantage to the race, while it secures justice to the individual. On any one of these three grounds there is a far stronger case for the probation officers than even for the women police. The system has worked for a long time, and has shown even now, with underpaid and in some cases inefficient probation officers, wonderfully successful results. I beg the Home Secretary to move in that direction, and I would indicate to my own party that it is in that direction the Labour party ought to move when they come into power and are able to do what they want.

9.0 P.M.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I would ask the Home Secretary to carefully consider the desirability of making further provision for the use of telephones by the police. There is an ever-increasing number of crimes in which motor cars are used, and one of the most efficient methods of dealing with crimes in which motor cars
are used and swift locomotion is available, is that there should be the possibility of drawing as rapidly as possible a cordon round the scene of the crime. If we are to draw this cordon which is so essential, then we must have very rapid means of communication, and additional telephone facilities should be placed at the disposal of the police. I understand that in certain groups of police stations one station can call up any other station in the group immediately, but it is not possible to make a general call to all stations in a considerable area. Facilities should be provided by which a general call could be given throughout a large area, and the police thus informed of anything that is taking place. Facilities for telephoning should also be given to police on point duty. A policeman is not able to leave his point duty, and he should have a key with which he could unlock a telephone in his vicinity. He would thus be in a position to communicate with headquarters, and in that way lead to the more rapid following up of any case which might have come under his observation. As the means of locomotion improve, so it is necessary to make as rapid and effective as possible these means of communication.

Major ENTWISTLE: I desire to raise the question of the Home Secretary's statement with regard to the Ronald True reprieve. I do not desire in any way to rehash a stale dish, and I do not propose to go into any question of public sentiment or feeling in regard to that case. I will restrict myself to the legal aspect, because I think the statement made by the Home Secretary is one which goes far beyond the particular facts of the case of Ronald True. It raises a very serious question as to whether or not there has been a. frustration, through the Home Secretary's action, of trial by jury, and the whole question of the administration of our criminal law is involved in the interpretation which the Home Secretary applied to the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, under which he says he acted. I propose to criticise especially the Home Secretary's statement made on the 13th June. As the Committee will recollect, we desired at that time to have a discussion on the matter, but the House did not see fit to have a discussion on that occasion, and this is the first opportunity we have had of going into the important legal questions involved in that statement. I have no wish to bore the Com-
mittee with legal arguments, but I am afraid it will be necessary to go into one or two before we can appreciate fully the effect of the Home Secretary's action in this case. The Home Secretary said:
It was my statutory duty to set up that Committee of Inquiry and when they reported to me that True was insane, and certified him to be insane, I was hound by the law of the land to reprieve him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1922; col. 204. Vol. 155.]
The Home Secretary therefore bases the whole of his defence on the fact that he had no discretion in the matter and was absolutely bound to act as he did. I am not, of course, raising any question as to the exercise of the prerogative, because that is not the question involved. The Home Secretary says he is bound, under his interpretation of the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1884, to act as he did, and had no discretion in the matter at all. I submit he had a discretion which ought to have been exercised in this particular case. What. reasons did the Home Secretary give to justify his statement-that he was bound to act as he did? He first of all quoted Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Act in question, which says:
In the case of a prisoner under sentence of death, if it appears to a Secretary of State, either by means of a certificate signed by two members of the visiting committee … or by any other means, that there is reason to believe such prisoner to be insane, the Secretary of State shall appoint two or more legally qualified medical practitioners, and the said medical practitioners shall forthwith examine such prisoner and inquire as to his insanity, and after such examination and inquiry such practitioners shall make a report in writing to the Secretary of State as to the sanity of the prisoner, and they, or the majority of them, may certify in writing that he is insane.
The right hon. Gentleman says that owing to the communication he received from the judge who tried this case, and the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, it certainly appeared to him, "by any other means," that there was reason to believe that this man was insane, and that he had to hold an inquiry. I will deal with that later, but the point I want, to deal with now is what action he was bound to take after the report of the committee and the certification that the man was insane. The Home Secretary said, that having submitted the question to the committee of medical experts, and having obtained their certification that this man was insane, he was bound under
the law to reprieve the man, and that he had no discretion whatever in the matter. What justification did he give for that statement? He quoted a whole list of old authorities, going back to the time of Coke, to the effect that no man could be hanged who was insane. When we look at all those authorities, which I have here beside me, but which I am not going to read, it is quite clear that in every single instance that they mention the man went insane after trial. There is no question there of an issue of insanity being raised at the trial and determined by the jury. In every single instance insanity supervened after trial, and, furthermore, in all these cases the insanity referred to is of such a type as was then understood to render a man not responsible to the law for his actions. There is no question at all that the insanity thereby intended was such insanity as is understood by the medical profession at the present time, with all their modern tests. I submit that every one of those authorities, on the grounds I have stated, was totally irrelevant.
It does not, however, remain at that. The Home Secretary led the House to understand that these authorities were th only authorities which affected the question as to what he had to do after he had received a report from the committee on this question of insanity, but that is not the fact, for if we look at the very Section from which he had previously quoted, we find that in Subsection (1) it says what the Secretary of State should do after the certificate is granted, and I will read the words of the Sub-section:
Where a prisoner is certified, in manner provided in this Section, to he insane, a Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, by warrant direct such prisoner to be removed to the asylum named in the warrant.
That is in the very Section which provides for the certificate which the right hon. Gentleman said he was bound to have in this case, and yet he never said anything about this Sub-section.

Mr. SHORTT: There are more words to read.

Major ENTWISTLE: The Sub-section goes on
and thereupon.such prisoner shall be removed to, and received in, such asylum"—

Mr. SHORTT: "And received in."

Major ENTWISTLE: Yes; and it goes on:
and, subject to the provisions of this Act relating to conditional discharge and otherwise, shall be detained therein, or in any other asylum to which he may be transferred, in pursuance of this Act, as a criminal lunatic until he ceases to he a criminal lunatic.
Those are the whole of the words of the Sub-section, and I would ask the Committee to consider what those words mean. The only authorities which the Home Secretary quoted were authorities which, he said, established the fact that you could not hang an insane man. Everyone of those authorities related to the case where a man who was found guilty subsequently became insane. That is the first point which differentiates all those authorities; secondly, there is no doubt about it that those old authorities at the time they were talking of insanity were referring to such insanity as was then understood, where a man was obviously a raving lunatic. I believe that if we sufficiently delved into the legal history of this matter we should find that the reason why the common law was established, that a man who was insane ought not to receive punishment, was because he was not able, in the terms which were then used, to "make his peace with God." Obviously, that is a test which is far removed from the modern tests of medical insanity, of which nobody knows what the definitions are, but which are left to the discretion of medical men.
There are further indications in this Section that the Home Secretary has a discretion in this matter. All he quoted were those old legal authorities, which I have shown were quite irrelevant, whereas in this very Section under which he was acting discretion is expressly given to him to order the removal of this prisoner to an asylum if he thinks fit. Assuming that those old authorities covered the facts of this case, which I do not admit for a moment, this Act was passed long after the time of every one of those authorities, and the terms of an Act which expressly provided what action he might take after a certificate is granted would overrule those authorities if it was inconsistent with them, though I submit that it is not inconsistent with them. If we look at Sub-section (3) of the same Section we find provisions relating to the cases of prisoners who are not under
sentence of death, and it is rather significant to notice the distinction between the provisions as regards that type of prisoner and the prisoner who is under sentence of death. Sub-section (3) reads:
Where it appears to any two members of the visiting committee of a prison that a prisoner in such prison, not being under sentence of death, is insane, they shall call to their assistance two legally qualified medical practitioners, and such members and practitioners shall examine such prisoner and inquire as to his insanity, and after such examination and inquiry may certify in writing that he is insane.
When we look at Sub-section (4), which deals with the case of a prisoner under sentence of death and which is the Subsection under which the Home Secretary acted, we find it is a different provision. It provides there that, after such examination and inquiry, such practitioners shall make a report in writing to the Secretary of State as to the sanity of the prisoner, and they, or the majority of them, may certify in writing that he is insane. The Committee will notice a distinction. In the case of a man under sentence of death, a report is called for, as well as a certificate; whereas, in the case of an ordinary prisoner, a mere certificate only is necessary. Why is the distinction? In the case of an ordinary prisoner, under sentence of imprisonment., if, on the visit of the Visiting Committee, that man is believed to be insane, what is the question involved? It is a mere matter of whether or not the association of an insane prisoner with persons who are sane is an advisable thing—whether or not it is better that that man should be removed to a criminal asylum. It is not a matter of any great importance, and the only provision made in this case is that, on a mere certificate of insanity by the medical practitioners as provided in the Section, that man can be removed to a criminal lunatic asylum.
In the case of a man under sentence of death, however, it makes a further provision. The provision is that that committee have to make a report on the sanity of the person in question. What is the reason for that distinction? If they have to make a report, as well as give a certificate, that obviously means a detailed report. The reasons for their decision have to be given. If, as the Home Secretary says, on the certificate of insanity he was bound to act, what was the
reason for the report being given, when it is very significantly excluded from the Section as regards those prisoners where, as I have shown, the matter is of small importance? The reason for the report being given is, obviously, in order to enable the Home Secretary to have reasons on which he can exercise the discretion, which is expressly granted to him by Sub-section (1) of the same Section, as to what action he ought to take on receiving the certificate of the committee of medical experts. What does that mean? It is not at all clear from the terms of this Act what is the definition of insanity therein referred to. We look at all the old authorities which the Home Secretary quoted in support of the action he took. There is no reason at all for thinking that the insanity therein referred to was anything else than insanity such as is recognised by the criminal law as exempting a person from responsibility for his acts. That is perfectly clear. What reason is there for assuming that the insanity in this question which the Home Secretary has to consider is other than insanity such as is recognised by the criminal law?
It is quite clear from the old authorities that the reason why a man, who was found to be, insane, had not to suffer the punishment, was because he was in such a state of mind as to be irresponsible for his acts as understood by the law. Can we say that this Act intended to introduce an entirely new test into these questions of legal insanity, and to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of medical experts, after the matter had already been examined into by a judge and jury, and that when that report of the medical experts was given, the Home Secretary was bound to act upon it? How can he say he was bound to act upon it, when Sub-section (1) in terms expressly says he may do it if he think fit? How does that coincide with his statement that he was bound to act according to the law? Why is there that distinction between Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (3), which expressly provides that he must have a detailed report from these experts? Why should he have a detailed report? Why should the section in express terms say he must have a discretion in this matter? Do all these terms mean nothing? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary was bound under this Sub-section (I) to exercise his discretion?
That is the whole gravamen of my criticism of the Home Secretary's action in this matter. He says he had no discretion in the matter, and yet we find that Sub-section (1) says he may, if he think fit, order the action which, in this case, he actually did order. How, in the face of that, can he say he had no discretion? What was the effect of the Home Secretary's action? If this Committee of medical experts had reported in fact, that after the trial Ronald True had become insane—when he would come within the terms of the precedents of the old authorities he mentioned—I would have no further criticism to make, but the Home Secretary has never made any such statement. In fact, we know that one of these experts who formed this Committee, Sir Maurice Craig, has said that this man Ronald True was insane from, birth, and that, in fact, when they examined him, his state of mind was no different from his state of mind at the time he committed the act, and at the time he was tried. If he were too insane to be tried within the, meaning of these old authorities, the issue could have been raised at the trial that he was unfit to plead. But that issue was never raised at the trial. What reason, then, had the Home Secretary to go behind the back of the jury, who decided that this man was responsible in law for his acts, and to order an inquiry, and, having got that inquiry, without any evidence, without any report from that Committee that there was any change in the state of mind of this man, to supersede the decision of the jury and order this man's reprieve?
That is a very important question. The law with regard to responsibility for a criminal act is definite and definitely settled, and the decision was arrived at in this case after trial by the judge and jury. Without any evidence of any change in the state of mind of this man the Home Secretary referred this same question to a decision of the medical experts, and he said, when they gave their certificate, that lie was bound to order the reprieve. That means that after a criminal action was tried, when the only issue in that action was one of insanity, when the action was gone into thoroughly by a judge and jury, who found that the man was not insane within the meaning of the criminal law—after all that is done,
the Home Secretary is bound to hold an inquiry by medical experts, and when they find he is insane within the modern doctrines of so-called medical insanity, he is bound to overrule the decision of the judge and jury. Can that be the meaning of the Act? Can it be the meaning of the Act when, in express terms, it leaves a discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary? It is even stronger than that. The matter went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Court of Criminal Appeal decided that the verdict of the jury was right on the question of insanity. I would like to refer to the terms of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, because there is a very significant Section in that Act which says:
If on any appeal it appears to the Court of Criminal Appeal that, although the appellant was guilty of the act or omission charged against him, he was insane at the time the act was done or omission made so as not to be responsible according to the law for his actions, the Court may quash the sentence passed at the trial and order the appellant to be kept in custody as a criminal lunatic under the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, in the same manner as if a special verdict had been found by the jury under that Act.
So that even if the jury had found that this man was sane the Court of Criminal Appeal could overrule that decision on the question of fact. That is a very important power which is expressly reserved for the Court of Criminal Appeal under the Act which set up that Court. They can, on a question of fact, reverse the opinion of the jury, and in this case, apart from any question whether or not the verdict was against the weight of evidence, they could decide, as a Court of first instance, whether or not this man was insane. Yet the Court of Criminal Appeal decided that this man was responsible in law for his act. What does this mean? After a trial by a judge and jury after the verdict had been reviewed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had power to reverse that decision on the question of fact, and after they had decided that this man was responsible in law for his actions, then, without any evidence of any fresh facts or of any change in the state of mind of this man, the Home Secretary says that under this Act he was bound to order a new investigation by a committee of medical experts. He says that, having got their report, he was bound to free this man, although the very Section under which he was acting
expressly says that he only need do this if he thinks fit, and that he may, if he thinks fit, order the removal of this man to a criminal lunatic asylum.
I think I have established conclusively that in this case the Home Secretary had a discretion. If he had a discretion, then arises the very important consideration as to how this discretion should have been exercised under the Act. As the issue of this man's insanity had already been tried by a judge and jury, and by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the only other issue which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have submitted to the experts was whether there had been any change in his state of mind after trial, and he ought to have called for a report upon that. Although the verdict of the jury was as to this man's state of mind at the time he committed the act, there was the opportunity of raising the question of his state of mind at the time of his trial by putting forward the issue that he was not fit to plead. That issue was not raised. When hon. Members remember that, and in view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, that there was no evidence of any change in the state of mind of this man since the trial, it really comes to this, that where, in a criminal trial, the only issue is one of insanity, and that issue is determined by a judge and jury and their verdict is upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Home Secretary is bound to put that same issue to a committee of medical experts, who apply entirely different tests; and, on their certificate, without any apparent instructions as to the tests to be applied, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to act in supersession and complete reversal of the verdict of the jury at the trial. That is a matter of very great importance in the administration of the criminal law of this country, and it is very necessary that it should be raised in the House of Commons at the present time.
I have not mentioned any matters other than the strictly legal aspect of this case, and I do not desire to do so. I have no sympathy at all with the "stunt" made by the newspapers at the time. I am quite certain the Home Secretary acted entirely as he thought he was bound to do. I do not wish to criticise him upon that point. My only criticism is that he has misinterpreted
this Act and misconceived his functions thereunder, and has not quoted, as he ought to have done, the relevant Subsection of the very Section under which he said he acted. The Act under which the right hon. Gentleman acted is called the Criminal Lunatics Act. Criminal lunatics! The right hon. Gentleman is bound to commit them to a criminal lunatic asylum. Yet we are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the submission he made to this committer of experts was whether or not this man was insane within the meaning of the ordinary law, so that he could be certified and removed to an asylum. Therefore the Home Secretary expressly realised that the test he put to the committee was a completely different one from that recognised by the criminal law. What justification he had for that I do not know. That is quite a different point from the one I have already raised, because, even assuming that the test the experts applied was their own test of medical insanity which is not recognised by the law, it still remains that the Home Secretary had a discretion in this matter, and I submit that that discretion ought to have been exercised.
The whole of this Act, under which the Home Secretary said he acted, relates to criminal lunatics. What reason is there to assume that the insanity referred to in that Act is other than insanity such as is recognised by the criminal law? We have it that the experts have to make a detailed and reasoned report as to their decision. Can we say that the Home Secretary ought not to have submitted to them an inquiry whether or not this man was insane within the meaning of the criminal law? Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done that does not affect the question that he should have acted upon considerations of whether or not this man ought to have been held responsible for his acts, and whether or not his condition came within the ordinary definition of insanity such as is understood by the criminal law.
This raises a very important point in the administration of our law, because if the right hon. Gentleman is right in his contention, then by submitting this question to a new tribunal, which acted on fresh tests, the whole issue tried by
the jury was worthless and entirely unnecessary. Why have the trial at all? Why not, in the first instance, when this question arose, leave the matter to the medical experts? The authorities whom the Home Secretary quoted state that a man shall not be arraigned if he is insane, and if he is insane after conviction he ought not to be punished. In this case the man was arraigned; the issue as to whether or not he was fit to be arraigned was never raised; and after he was arraigned the issue of insanity was tried by the jury. There is no evidence at all to show any change in his state of mind. The effect of the Home Secretary's decision is to render this trial by the judge and jury, and the review of that trial by the Court of Criminal Appeal, absolutely unnecessary. That is a very serious question. If we are going to have questions of responsibility in law of crime decided by medical experts, on tests not recognised by the law, that is a matter which ought to be raised in this House, and is one upon which the House should have an opportunity of giving an opinion.

Mr. SHORTT: I am very glad to have the opportunity of dealing with this matter. I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastl-under-Lymne (Colonel Wedgwood)—the inferior Newcastle—has suggested that he would like to have a statement as to the difference between the True case and the Jacoby case. I am glad to have the opportunity of dealing with and correcting misstatements of fact with regard to Jacoby which have appeared in the public Press. I gather from what my hon. and gallant Friend has said that he thinks that in dealing with the point raised I have been mistaken in my law. If so, I am glad to say that I have been mistaken in very good company, in the company of a number of the most respected of His Majesty's judges. There is no question of the certificate of a doctor upsetting the verdict of the jury. It does not touch it. The verdict of the jury stands as it stood before. If True were to become sane tomorrow he would go hack to prison, and there is nothing in law to prevent his being hanged. There is no question of touching the verdict of the jury.
Since the Court of Criminal Appeal came into being there have been 11 cases
where the defence was insanity, and where the jury found against the defence of insanity, as in this case, and where subsequently the prisoner was respited on the ground that he was insane. In eight of these cases where the jury had found against the defence of insanity, the judge and the Court of Appeal, or both, said that the verdict of the jury was right., and that they could not find any evidence that the man was legally insane, therefore it could not be given as insane, but the Court drew the attention of the Home Secretary to eight out of the 11 cases in order that the Home Secretary might act under this Act—just exactly as in this case!
What is it upon which my hon. and gallant Friend bases his suggestion that I had a discretion in the matter at all? The law in regard to the treatment of insane persons is part of the common law of the land. It is not statutory law at all. This Sub-section (1) that my hon. and gallant Friend quoted deals with criminal lunatics of all kinds and not merely with criminal lunatics who are murderers. If a man gets a month and goes insane, he becomes a criminal lunatic. Supposing a criminal in prison goes mad, and there was no Sub-section (1), the prison authorities would have to go round, cap in hand, to the various asylums and say, "Will you take this madman out of the prison hospital into your asylum?" and the asylum authorities could, if they thought fit, say, "No, keep him in your prison hospital." Sub-section (1) gives the Secretary of State power, wherever he thinks necessary, as in long sentence cases, or in cases of that sort, to say to any asylum in the land, "Here is a criminal lunatic; you have to take him." That is the whole object of this section. It is idle to say, because you have a discretion as to whether you will force an asylum to take a man who is perhaps doing one month or three months, who, it may be, will be out of prison in a few weeks and therefore we do not bother to send him to the asylum—though the law gives us the power to force a man on the lunatic asylum authorities—you have a discretion as to whether he is to be hanged or not. That is perfectly ridiculous!
In regard to the question of Jacoby, it has been said of me in the Press—because this matter has not, been raised
here—that Jacoby was a young lad of 17. I think it is common knowledge now that that was quite wrong. He was three weeks off 19. It was said that he was acting merely from panic, and that he was not a quite mentally sound young boy, and that—what is far more important—I have taken no trouble in his case to find out whether he was sane or insane. That I look upon as far the worst part of the accusation the Press has made against me. What are the facts? Take first his mental condition. He was most carefully and thoroughly examined in Brixton Prison by a very highly experienced prison doctor, who was one of the chief witnesses certifying to the insanity of True in his trial. Dr. East examined him most carefully and gave me a most carefully prepared report on his condition. He certified that he was absolutely sane and above the normal in intelligence. In addition to that—because Jacoby was not the poor, friendless, penniless youth he was made out to he—in addition to that, those responsible for his defence went to a well-known mental expert, one of the chief men who gave evidence that, True was insane, and that same man carefully examined him. He refused to say anything in evidence except that Jacoby was perfectly sane. That was what happened before the conviction. After the conviction I was determined still to be perfectly safe. He was in Pentonville. I had him carefully examined for the third time by a highly experienced doctor, who absolutely confirmed what the other two doctors had said.
The result was this: Here was a young fellow, nearly 19, who had been carefully examined by three great experts ail of whom had described him as absolutely sane. I think it is a little unfair after that to say that I took no interest in the matter of his mental condition. In regard to the facts, it was said the jury knew all the facts of the case. I saw a letter in a newspaper written by an hon. Member who sits opposite, who said that the jury knew all the facts. They did not know all the facts of the case, and very properly they did not know all the facts of the case. They did not know the antecedents, they did not know the story of previous robberies of like description, and many things which would have prejudiced their minds when they
were arriving at the decision as to whether he was guilty or not. Therefore the jury did not know everything.
In this case there were two stories told by Jacoby himself, one to the police voluntarily given, written down and read over carefully to him and signed by him and given as the true story. There was the story told at the trial which gave rise to the suggestion that he had merely acted from panic, and that when he struck the blow he was panic stricken. The judge asked the jury—and I am not arguing now or departing from the custom that it is not usual to discuss the advice given to the King in these matters—I merely state what are the facts of the case as disclosed in the shorthand notes of the trial—the judge asked the jury this question: "Do you accept the story he has told to-day or do you accept the story as true which he told the police?" The jury's answer was perfectly definite, that they believed what he had told at the trial was untrue, and that what he had told the police was true. I will read a few words of what he told the police. He said that he thought there were men in the house. Having gone to the porter to see, and having gone back to his bedroom, he described how he waited for some time in his bedroom, he then said:
Whilst I was sitting on the bed I made up my mind to go upstairs to the visitors' bedrooms to go and try to get some money, to steal it if there was any there. It occurred to me to prepare for emergency in case I got caught up there, so I thought T would take a hammer with me and use it if I was caught, and if I did use it, to blame the affair on to the men whose voices I thought I heard in the kitchen.
Here was the case of this young man going to commit a robbery upstairs, not the first he had committed by his own confession to the police, and he deliberately went to the toolhouse. In another part of his statement he says that he took up two tools which he thought were not sufficiently deadly, and then he picked up the hammer, and he went upstairs prepared to use that hammer if he was caught in an emergency. f am not arguing whether I was right or wrong, but I wish to put right certain statements which have been made by giving a statement of the facts. I have told the House without any deductions or arguments the facts as they were at the trial, and the House will be
better able to judge how far I was right or wrong in dealing with these two cases.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: Is it not a fact that the jury recommended Jacoby to mercy on the ground that when he went into the room he did not intend to commit murder, and how does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile with that the statement he made that the tale which was told by Jacoby to the police was not the tale told in Court?

Mr. SHORTT: Perhaps I had better read what was said by the judge to the jury on this point.

Major LOWTHER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also give the reference to the recommendation to mercy.

Mr. SHORTT: This is the extract:
MR. JUSTICE MCARDIE: You must make up your minds about a further point. You have already, I gather, rejected his evidence; you are satisfied that he was speaking the truth when he told Mr. Connell and the other police officers what really happened?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes, Sir."
It was on that I based the statement that the jury accepted what he told the police. According to the report the jury said:
They recommended him to mercy because he did not intend to kill when he went upstairs.
That may be so, but at the same time he took the hammer, and it was for the purpose of an emergency if he was caught. Hon. Members can form their own conclusions.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Were the medical experts the same who gave evidence at the trial?

Mr. SHORTT: No, they were two highly experienced prison doctors. Sir James Baker and Sir Maurice Craig, and neither of them gave evidence at the trial and they were absolutely independent.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Surely Sir Maurice Craig was called to give evidence at the Old Bailey?

Mr. SHORTT: No. I am pretty certain about that.

Major C. LOWTHER: The Home Secretary has already dealt with some of the points which I intended to raise this
evening during the course of this opportunity given to Members, but he has not really touched the point. which so forcibly strikes public opinion in this matter. Although I am not in a position to speak for public opinion all over the country, I do not think that the question of whether Jacoby was sane or not ever entered the heads of the majority of people.

Mr. HOHLER: Do I understand that the Home Secretary has finished his statement? If he has not, it is really very inconvenient to have so much debate.

Mr. SHORTT: I have quite finished.

The CHAIRMAN: I have called upon the hon. and gallant Member for Cumberland.

Major LOWTHER: My point is that the public conscience was in a large measure shocked by the fact that the Home Secretary did not in this instance exercise the prerogative which is happily his. On this matter I am not speaking entirely without my book, because the "Law Journal" on this point says:
If Mr. Shortt has not distinguished himself in the exercise of his semi-judicial functions during his tenure of Office as Home Secretary, it is to be attributed to the anomalies which surround the post, increased as they have been, by the constitution of the Court of Criminal Appeal, rather than to any lack of legal perception or humanitarian feeling on his own part. The waning credit of the Home Office as the dispensing authority for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative has received a fresh shock from the failure to appreciate at its proper value the overwhelming opinion in favour of the remission of the death sentence on the boy Jacoby, or to give effect to the recommendation of the jury to mercy on the ground that his crime was not premeditated, nor was there any intention to kill when he struck the blow which caused Lady White's death. The law, as things stand with us, cannot distinguish between the varying degrees of culpability in matters which concern the taking of human life, but it has hitherto been the saving grace of our criminal system that the last word is not with the law as it is expressed in the textbooks, hut with the responsible Minister of Justice who exercises the King's prerogative of mercy—which nowadays is not an arbitrary discretion, but the expression of the public conscience. If that conscience is offended, as it has been in this latest instance, the injury that is done is not confined to the particular case—it extends to the whole administration of justice, which is weakened, and not strengthened, by the strict enforcement of the legal penalty regardless of all considerations of humanity or extenuating circumstance.
I claim that that is about as strong a condemnation as could possibly be expressed of the Home Secretary's action in this matter. It is complained by a great many people in this country that, while the Home Office is too lenient in some cases, it is too severe in others. Unhappily, this is not the first case of the kind that has arisen. On previous occasions cases have been brought to the notice of this House which I will not weary the Committee with now, but this is a culminating instance. I maintain that, whatever the Home Secretary may say on the matter, the jury who heard the evidence are in a better position to judge of the merits of the case than any official in the Home Office who may read the shorthand notes of the evidence or the reports in the Press. That is my point. To the jury is entrusted a great responsibility, and, having taken that responsibility, they ought to be trusted to express an opinion which shall have a great and even an overwhelming weight with the Home Secretary. I say the Home Secretary is exceeding his function when he goes against an opinion which the jury has strongly expressed. I had intended to develop this matter further, but the Home Secretary, in many instances, has given me the information I was going to ask for, and I will merely suggest to him, in conclusion, that he should put before the heads of departments in the Home Office the paragraph from the "Law Journal" which I have just read, and I would also ask him to bear in mind himself what Shakespeare said when he declared that
The quality of mercy is not strained.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: We have been discussing a very important matter touching the advice tendered by the Home Secretary in the exercise of the prerogative. This, no doubt, is quite in order, but I should like to take particular note of the fact at this moment, because on another occasion, in Supply. we may wish to question advice offered by another Minister to His Majesty in the exercise of the prerogative.

The CHAIRMAN: That, I think, is scarcely a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a statement, but there is nothing for me to rule upon.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. WIGNALL: It is not my intention to follow on the lines that the Debate
has proceeded during the last hour. I desire to raise another matter of importance, and I shall depart entirely from the question of the dead and talk about the living. I wish to raise one or two questions, and the first is one I have been asked to bring forward by a large body of men who are concerned in the working of the buses and tramways of London. This question affects the interests first of the companies, secondly of the employés, and, thirdly, of the general public. I am submitting this case entirely on behalf of the employés, the conductors and motor-men engaged in working the traffic in the London streets. The position is this. Prior to the War period, a rule was strictly enforced that vehicles licensed to carry a certain number of passengers should only be allowed to carry the number certified and no more. That was strictly observed, and, therefore, if a bus was certified to carry 48 passengers only 48 were allowed to be carried. During the War period, however, the shortage of vehicles, and the difficulty of conducting business, was responsible for an Order being given by which a certain number of passengers were allowed to stand in the buses or trams. At the time, of course, no one found fault with that Order. The practice was continued right. up to a certain period, I think until September last year, when an agitation had arisen, and finally the Home Secretary issued an Order that the buses should be allowed to carry five standing passengers, while there was no limit as to the number the trams could carry. That Order was to extend for six months. It was made in September, 1921, and expired on the 31st March, 1922. In the ordinary condition of things, therefore, the rule that there should be no standing passengers ought now to be in force, and, as it is not, I am not at all certain whether the Home Secretary ought not to prosecute himself for a violation of the law. I maybe wrong in my interpretation of the position, but at any rate he ought to forbid any violation of the law. Yet he has held over the Order since the 31st March last. He has issued no new Order, and, consequently, the condition of affairs by which standing passengers are allowed continues. Either a new Order ought to be issued, or the existing law ought to be obeyed. That is the position as I see it.
We here, of course, represent the public, and if the law is strictly enforced I may be the first victim, That, however, does not matter. Right must be done.
I am taking this matter up on behalf of the men, and at the request of their Union, because we feel there is really no necessity for a continuation of what I call a violation of the law. The omnibuses now on the streets are mostly of the new type of construction, and to allow passengers to stand in the centre makes it very difficult indeed for the conductor to perform his ditty of collecting fares, and to do his other work. It also causes inconvenience to the passengers who have to stand; it is very trying to their patience. We say that if the traffic is larger, the companies oughtto put on more omnibuses and thus deal with the traffic as it arises. A more important point may be mentioned in connection with this, and it is this: the more omnibuses that are employed, and the more trams that are put on the roads, the more persons are required to work them, and, in these days when there so much unemployment, it is important that as many of the unemployed as possible should be absorbed. Therefore, the conductors are pressing this matter to an issue on these two points—firstly, that it invloves extra duties and difficulty in carrying out their work, and secondly, that it increases the volume of unemployment. So far as the trams are concerned, there is no limit to the number allowed to stand. Often they are so crowded that it is very difficult to get along at all, and it is marvellous how the conductors are able to collect the fares and carry out their duties.
The next point that I desire to raise is one that may not, perhaps, be considered to be within the province of the Home Secretary, though I think it is. With regard to the new omnibuses now on the road, those of the "K" and "S" types, the complaint is made by the motormen that they are very injurious to health. In the old type of omnibus the engine was in front of the man, but in the new types the engine is right underneath the driver's feet, and it becomes so hot, and makes it so difficult for the man to perform his work, that it is very trying to him, and sickness increases in consequence. I am requested to ask the right hon. Gentleman to cause an inquiry to he made into the effect of the changed posi-
tion, and the inconvenience and risk of sickness. It is said even that there have been a good many deaths. The men get very hot—it has been described as like the warm room of a Turkish bath—and then, having to be exposed to climatic conditions on returning to their homes, they suffer in consequence from colds and chills.
The next matter to which I want to draw the attention of the Home Secretary is the question of factory inspection. The Home Secretary is aware that the docks Regulations which were brought into existence some years ago depend entirely upon a certain number of factory inspectors. My complaint is that, whether it is on account of economy, or whether it is because there is no desire to enforce the Regulations, there is a clear indication of relaxation here. I am not complaining that the Home Secretary is not alive to his duties or aware of the difficulties that exist, but simply that there is not a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out the work that is required for the enforcement of the Regulations. An inspector in our docks is like a policeman on his beat. The fact that the policeman is on his beat will possibly deter burglars or thieves from entering premises if they know that the place is being watched. An inspector is very much in that position, and Regulations will not be violated if those who desire to violate them, or might do so unintentionally, are made more careful by his presence. If it were a mere matter of carrying on the work rapidly or otherwise, perhaps we should not trouble, but when it becomes a question of life—because many accidents have occurred and are occurring which, in my opinion, could and would have been prevented—or a question of injury, we say that the cost of the inspector is justified. We know of defective gangways, of defective ladders in the ships' holds; we know of cases in which workmen have to descend at the risk of their lives; and if a record were given of the number of accidents that have occurred in our docks within the last few years, it would be found that most of them could have been prevented.
I am bringing this question forward in order that the Home Office may take into consideration the number of inspectors they have working to-day. I notice, from the Report that is before us, that the
number has been reduced. In 1921–22 it was 90, and I take it that that number includes those inspectors with whom I am concerned. There are now 86, showing a reduction of four. What we have always claimed, and what we desire to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary in regard to an increase in the number of inspectors, is that men should be engaged who have a practical knowledge of dock work. It is all very well to have an inspector who can speak two or three languages, or who has passed with honours through the university, but we want a man who knows one end of a ship from the other, who knows where defects exist, who can tell exactly what is likely to result in an accident, and who has the power to enforce the law. The Regulations are a dead letter unless they are enforced in the strictest sense of the word. When they were brought into existence the work was carried out actively. Men were apportioned for dock work and nothing else, they became accustomed to it, were skilled in it and understood it, and they did splendid work, reducing the number of accidents in our docks very considerably. We want to return to that condition of affairs. We want to get the men apportioned, and if there are not enough, more should be engaged who would specialise in dock work. With our great system of docks throughout the country, and with the great number of foreign ships that are coming and will again come into our ports, it is absolutely necessary that the life of the dock worker shall be safeguarded, and that the Regulations which were brought into existence for the very purpose of protecting the workers should be enforced. Otherwise, it would be better to wipe them out altogether.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): Perhaps I may deal at once with the points which have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. As regards omnibuses, the matter is at the present moment under consideration by the Commissioner, Who is meeting the people interested. The question is not as simple as it might appear, because the amount of traffic has increased so much on the streets that the question of increasing still further the number of large vehicles is not one which can be embarked upon without a great deal of consideration, otherwise one
might. do more harm than good. As regards the question of docks, we yield to no one in the determination to see that working in the docks, as, indeed, working in the factories and in every other branch of industry, is rendered as safe as it possibly can be by enforcing Regulations and by ensuring that the safety appliances are of the most up-to-date and perfect character. The difficulty, of course, of dealing with the docks as a separate unit is that the number of clocks is very small as compared with the number of workshops and factories, and just as an inspector has to qualify and be trained to inspect all the various factories in his district, some have to put dock inspection as part of the routine of work of men serving under the Factory Inspection Department. Inspection of docks and wharves are more frequent than the inspection of factories. As regards numbers, it is true the number of inspectors is not as large to-day as it was a short time ago. That does not apply only to dock inspectors. It applies to inspectors of factories as well. It arises from the fact that there is a certain number of vacancies which have not been filled. There would be justification for very serious complaint if the result had been increased accidents, but fortunately the figures show that the reverse is the case. In the year 1913 there were 145 fatal accidents at the docks, and in 1914, 157. It is satisfacory to find that in 1920 that number had fallen to 118, and last year it was 69. it will readily occur to hon. Members that that is partly due to decreased activity.

Mr. WIGNALL: Could the hon. Baronet tell us how many cases of death or accident have arisen through defects in the Regulations?

Sir J. BAIRD: These are fatal accidents at the docks. If I can give more information I shall be delighted to do it but I rather think the figures I have given cover the point. At the docks, just as at the factories, we are daily and constantly engaged in endeavouring to secure greater safety by improvement in the appliances, increase of guards, and all the safety devices which everyone connected with factories and docks is familiar with, and we are, undoubtedly, making progress in that direction. I think the figures I have read indicate
that there is a very satisfactory diminution in the accidents, but I should be very sorry if the Committee imagine for a moment that we are satisfied. We shall never be satisfied. Obviously, it is our business not to be satisfied so long as there are accidents, and our business is to take every step to sec that accidents are reduced as far as is humanly possible.
The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) and the hon. and gallant. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) referred with satisfaction to the progress that has been made in regard to probation. With the greater part of what they said, I am in cordial agreement, and I thank them for the satisfactory impression that they gave of the progress that has been made. I should like, on the other hand, to guard against the idea that lack of money is the only difficulty which we encounter in endeavouring to extend, as we are endeavouring to extend, the probation system. Lack of money is, undoubtedly, a factor, as pointed out in the Report of the Departmental Committee, hut it is by no means the only question. The human factor is so very important in matters of probation that even if you had unlimited funds at your disposal you could not guarantee to have a satisfactory probation system, for two reasons. In the first place, the kind of men and women who are most successful as probation officers are not to be found easily. You cannot get them by advertising in the public Press, or in commonplace ways of that sort. In order to carry out the duties with which they are entrusted, they must be men and women who feel a special vocation for that particular kind of work, and it was made quite clear from the inquiry held by the Departmental Committee that only men and women of that sort are any good for the work. A further thing which was made clear, and it is extremely satisfactory, was that an immense number of admirable men and women are at This moment devoting their lives to this work, with an increasing and most satisfactory amount of success, to which a tribute was paid by the two hon. Members.
In the second place probation work cannot be put upon the same footing as a business or a career. I do not want to be misunderstood, and I hope
that I shall not be misunderstood, when I say that it is much more in the nature of missionary work, work that people of a certain stamp, and having a certain outlook upon life, and a certain mentality, can undertake. Money with them is not the important thing. They must have that enthusiasm for their work, and without that enthusiasm they had much better not attempt to do this difficult work of probation. It, is, undoubtedly, true that the pay of probation officers has been inadequate, and attention is drawn to that in the Report of the Departmental Committee. In this connection, as in others, it is very easy to say that in spending money upon probation you probably save money on other Votes. You would probably reduce the number of people convicted of crime, and who are kept in prison at great expense to the State. That I believe, but I cannot prove it, and when one cannot prove a case one has to go carefully, and one cannot embark light-heartedly upon expenditure which, though you believe it is thoroughly justified, does, for the moment, increase the cost of the State. Prohibition work is done by men and women who are selected by the justices, and paid by the local authorities. It is unwise for Members of Parliament to interfere and seek to impose upon local authorities financial burdens which we know we are not going to bear ourselves.
What we have done with a view to trying to foster an interest in probation work, and to ensure that the fullest possible advantage should be taken of this very excellent part of our system for dealing with offenders, is to circulate among all the police authorities and local authorities the Report of the Departmental Committee, drawing attention to the various aspects of it and expressing the hope that, so far as they can see their way to do so, local authorities will adopt the various recommendations.
We have to proceed carefully in a matter of this kind. Local authorities are jealous of their own rights. They will not accept dictation from the Home Office, and we have no right to dictate to them, on matters of this kind. But the Home Office has set up an Advisory Committee and we have got a paid secretary. That is the only additional expenditure that has resulted from the Report. We have got a paid whole-time officer in the Home
Office, as secretary of the Advisory Committee, and he will be at the disposal of any local authorities who care to consult him as indeed they can also do in the case of any members of the Advisory Committee. A Sub-committee has been set up to deal with the question of probation in London which, as hon. Members know, is carried on directly under the Home Office with a view to revising the salaries of the probation officers, and the recommendations of the Sub-committee are in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. They have been submitted to my right hon. Friend, and I hope that before very long he will see his way to carry them into effect. As the subject is one of great importance and of interest to many Members of this House I thought it right to make this statement.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I wish to bring before the Home Secretary a matter with which I am not sure that he is well acquainted. Last week at the Monmouth-shire Assizes a number of young men were prosecuted for riot and roughly handling the manager of the Nine Mile Point Colliery in Monmouthshire. That is the old colliery in which I used to act as check weigher. We used to get on very well without actions of this kind. I have no intention of trying to defend or justify such actions, but I do want to put in a plea for these young men. I know them and know their parents well. There has never been any trouble in any of these families before, and some of these parents are broken-hearted to-day because for the first time their sons are in prison. I think that three have been sent to prison for six months, and others for three, four and five months. The wife of one of these young men is in a very serious condition of health, suffering from a disease from which she is not expected to recover, and so impressed was the judge that, although the case finished on a Thursday, he deferred sentence until Saturday to enable that young man to be at home, as much as possible. Unfortunately, he is one of those who have been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and the wife's sufferings are so much the worse because her husband is in prison.
One or two of these boys I knew when they were in school. They were brought up in the Sunday schools where I used to attend. They have never been in
trouble in their lives before. Their mothers and fathers were members of the same church. They got into this excited crowd on that particular morning and, of course, got into trouble and have been sentenced. I would ask the Home Secretary if he would Took into these cases with a view to the remission of the sentences. The incident occurred about three months ago, and as the men have been out of work the whole of that time with this prosecution hanging over their heads, I think that they have suffered sufficient already. I believe that this prosecution, conviction and sentence have been sufficient to ensure that this sort of thing will not occur again. I take it that we do not want to keep men in prison from sheer vindictiveness, if we can be sure that the lesson has been learned and that the men's future conduct will be all that can be desired. If the Home Secretary would prefer that I should see him privately and discuss individual cases, I would be pleased to do so. I know these men and their past conduct well, and I know that there is nothing vicious or mad in their make-up.

Sir C. WARNER: The answer to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) as to London 'buses was not satisfactory. It was suggested that the regulations allowing people to stand were continued in force because there were more 'buses to be put on the streets. If more 'buses were put on the streets, instead of adding to the congestion they would decrease it. The more 'buses there are the fewer taxi-cabs are used and the fewer private vehicles. It is not an argument to say that the extra 'buses would crowd the streets, for they really relieve the traffic. 'Buses are used today by hundreds of people who each took a separate taxi-cab before the War. That sort of thing is to be encouraged. The more convenient the 'buses are made the easier will be the traffic in the streets. I have been a very frequent traveller in 'buses. I know from my own experience and from conversations with conductors that it is a great grievance with the conductors that people should be allowed to stand. It is very difficult for the conductors to collect fares and it is very uncomfortable for the passengers. The new 'bus was found fault with because the driver sat on the top of the engine. I believe the latest 'bus is an
improvement on that which was made about a year ago. The real grievance is that there is not room for a big man to drive a 'bus comfortably, and that he wants a little more room for his legs. I would like to add my plea to what was said by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. These are all important matters, and I trust the 'bus regulations will be altered so as to get the 'bus companies to put more 'buses on the streets.

Major BARNES: If this Debate has done nothing else, it has served the extremely useful purpose of showing how much the comfort and happiness and convenience of this country depend upon the administration of the Home Office. When I was listening to the hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Charles Edwards), I could not help thinking what a great thing it was that in this House a man should be able to stand up and bring the details of so homely a case before a Minister of the Crown who is responsible for the administration of justice. No more valuable function could be performed by the House of Commons. The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, together with the speeches that elicited it, presented the Home Office in a very interesting and attractive light. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with whom I have the honour to share the representation of the greater Newcastle, has many great and responsible duties—duties that very few men would care to have placed on their shoulders; and in their discharge he frequently meets with comments which, in the opinion not only of his friends but of many who have not that privilege, are entirely unjustifiable. I like to think of the Home Secretary, not so much as the administrator of justice, but as the principal welfare worker in this country. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) and realised how in those great gates of entrance into this country, our harbours and ports, the lives and the health of many of our hardest workers are under the right hon. Gentleman's charge. That is an aspect of his work to which more public attention and more public credit might be given.
The same remark applies to factory inspection. I had the privilege not long ago of being present on the occasion of
well-merited honour being done to the first woman factory inspector in this country. The Under-Secretary will remember the occasion because he forced it with a tribute which was as handsome as it was deserved. I shall always recollect, hearing among the speeches at that event, the speech of a woman worker in one of the factories of Lancashire, who recalled some of her earliest experiences when she first came into contact with the factory inspector. She told us how much it meant in the comfort and happiness of her class—that organisation which is under the administration of my right hon. Friend. As I say, I prefer to look upon him as a welfare worker rather than as a policeman. There is another aspect in which he appears and in which he is not quite so familiar to the country—that is in the aspect of brewer. The Home Secretary is one of the principal brewers of the country. I believe he has delegated the main responsibility of that task to his colleague, the Under-Secretary, and I wish to address to that hon. Member a question or two to which I hope he will return as prompt an answer as he has returned to other queries in the course of the Debate. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are charged under the Licensing Act with the duties formerly Performed by the Central Control Board. Part II of the Licensing Act, Section 113, Sub-section (4), provides that the Secretary of State shall cause such accounts to he kept in relation to the State-managed districts as the Treasury may direct.

The CHAIRMAN: There is a separate Vote dealing with that matter, and therefore I fear the hon. and gallant Member is not in order in raising it on the present Vote.

Major BARNES: I was not proposing to go into the question of the administration of the State-managed districts. I know a separate Vote is down for that, but in this Vote we are considering the salary of the Secretary of State, and I submit with great deference, that in discussing that salary, some reference may be made to the duties for which he receives that well-earned salary.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that is not so. Where a Minister is charged with extraneous duties, for which a separate
Vote is provided, the discharge of those duties cannot be discussed upon the salary of his principal and proper office.

Major BARNES: I was in some uncertainty as to whether or not I was going beyond the scope of the Vote. Before you take an absolutely final decision, Sir, may I refer you to the Estimates. There is an Estimate for State-managed districts, which is Vote 30 and is to be found on page 205 of these. Estimates. If you will be good enough to refer, Mr. Hope, to that Vote, you will see that on page 206 there is an item which is described as being included under the Home Office, and then, if I might refer you to the actual Vote which is under discussion, which is on page 39, or, rather, on page 31, there is an item there: "Office accommodation (Buildings, Furniture, Fuel and Light, etc.), Class I, 10," which is the item referred to on page 206. The point I submit is whether that attachment of the one account to the other does not permit of my remarks on the subject I was proposing to raise.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not find this either on page 31 or on page 39.

Major BARNES: On page 31 there is an item: "Office accommodation (Building, Furniture, Fuel, and Light, etc.), Class I, 10" which is clearly the item referred to on page 206.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not see the connection between the duties of the Home Secretary and the offices which the Office of Works has provided for him. I admire the hon. and gallant Member's ingenuity, but I am afraid, all the same, I must rule him out of order.

Major BARNES: I submit to your ruling, Sir, but it did occur to me that duties were performed in those offices and that those offices were there for the performance of the duties. I regret I am debarred from proceeding, because I had some very interesting comments to make, and I can only hope that before we come to the Report Stage of the Finance Bill the Vote which would permit an inquiry into the State-managed districts, and, therefore, into the cost of the production of beer, might come before the Committee and enable us to elicit some very useful information which the Home Secretary could give us, and—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is now dealing with the very topic which is proscribed.

Major BARNES: In the circumstances I think it is unwise for me to proceed further.

Mr. HOGGE: We have had a very long and very interesting discussion on questions of Home Office policy, but I do not think we have yet started to examine into the finances of this particular Vote, and as it is our bounden duty from time to time to examine, as carefully and meticulously as we can, the various items of expenditure on this Vote, there are certain items which seem to me to call for explanation before we agree, if we do finally agree, to allow the Home Secretary to have his Vote tonight. There has been within the past few days a considerable amount of discussion on the question of the Honours List, and I notice in the Home Office Vote that there are two items which raise the question of, at any rate, two classes of honours. Under Sub-head G, we have what is set out as the Roll of the Baronetage. In connection with that, there is a sum of £135 provided for the remuneration of the Assistant Registrar. I do not see any item in the accounts for the salary of a Registrar. Perhaps there is a Registrar for this particular roll of honour which is borne on some other Vote. It may be that this particular person has specific duties connected with the Home Office. What I should like to know is, what is the connection between the Home Office and the Baronetage? Why is the Roll of the Baronetage kept at the Home Office, and what has my right hon. Friend got to do with the Baronet-age? It may be, of course, that my right hon. Friend has nothing to do with it, except to record these particular distinctions. I do not know why they record them at the Home Office, unless it is a new class of criminals about which my right hon. Friend must have specific information. At any rate, I should like to know why this falls under his province.
Under Sub-head H my right hon. Friend is also responsible for another of the degrees of honours in this country, namely, the Order of the British Empire. That seems to be under his control, too. I do now know why he keeps a record of the members of the Order of the British Empire, or whether it is that he only
takes the finger-prints of the members of the Order for some future purposes, as to which I can only speculate. At any rate, there is an expenditure under Subhead H of £205—which is a slight reduction of £31 from last year—for the remuneration of the Acting Secretary, including bonus. With great respect, many of us thought it was a great mistake to widen the sphere of distinctions in this country, but, of course, that is a question I cannot discuss on this Vote. At any rate, it involves, apparently, not only the salary for the Acting Secretary, but a bonus as well for this particular individual, whoever he may be. While the total amount is less, I notice that the incidental expenses remain the same. I am rather curious to know why that is so, because in another part of the Vote the numbers are given both for the Baronetage, and also for the Order of the British Empire, and, as far as I can make out, I presume the number given in the column for 1922–23 is the number of honours for this particular year. It is less than 1921–22, both for the Roll of the Baronetage and for the Order of the British Empire. I can quite understand that whichever official has to do with either of those duties must, of course, receive a salary as long as he is the official concerned with it, but I do not understand why, the incidental expenses ought to be the same if the number included in the Order of the British Empire this year is so much less than that of last year. On page 30, under H, we find that in 1922–23 there was apparently 305 honours conferred under the Order of the British Empire as against 336 in 1921–22, and under the Roll of the Baronetage.

Mr. SHORTT: Those figures are pounds.

Mr. HOGGE: That makes it worse. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can explain the questions I put to him—why he requires to keep the Rolls of the Baronet-age and of the Order of the British Empire With regard to the salary—

Sir J. BAIRD: Where is it?

Mr. HOGGE: It is on page 38. I am not surprised, as the Under-Secretary does not know that he has anything to do with the Order of the British Empire, that he does not know upon what page
of the Vote to find the reference. Now he has found that he is responsible for the Vote for the Order of the British Empire, he will be able to reply to my questions.
I should like to turn from the Roll of the Baronetage and the Order of the British Empire to the wages of the charwomen, which appear on page 33. I have taken an interest in the wages of charwomen ever since I came to this House. There are some figures on this page which require explanation from the Home Secretary. On page 33, there are set out various officials under the Office Keeper's Staff in the Home, Office, and there are some remarkable comparisons with regard to the office held and the wage paid. We have always been led to understand that the Government are model employers, both in regard to the wages paid and the hours served. Hon. Members will find in this particular section of the Vote that there is for the year 1922–23 only one girl messenger employed, as against four last year. We congratulate any Department which reduces its messengers in the excellent proportion of from four to one. This particular girl receives 35s. 6d. per week inclusive. I presume, as she is described as a "girl messenger," that she is a girl of tender years. I have no objection at all to this particular girl messenger getting this sum of money.
If you look at the next item, that of charwomen, you will find at least 32 charwomen. Their numbers have not been reduced. Apparently it has been possible to reduce the number of messengers in this particular Department who carry the messages from one Department to another, but it has not been possible to make any economy in the number of women required to clean these particular offices. If hon. Members look at the remuneration, they will see these women only receive 15s. 6d. a week.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: It is part-time payment.

Mr. HOGGE: It is quite true that it is part-time payment. The charwomen have to be out before the officials come in. The charwomen are much longer in the offices than the officials—we know that! If you divide the figure, you see it works out at 2s. 6d. or 2s. 7d. a day paid to the charwomen. That remunera-
tion is not princely. If the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary will look a little lower on the page he will see that there are a certain number of labourers engaged by or at the Home Office, and one of these receives 34s. weekly—personal to himself! I do not know whether he does any work at the Home Office? "The labourer," we know, "is worthy of his hire." [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] I am glad to remind hon. Gentlemen of literature which they apparently read. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is this labourer gets 34s. and the

others 27s. weekly? Also, why does this girl messenger receive 35s. 6d. a week inclusive, while the labourer, who may be a married man with a family, only gets 27s. with a possible advance of 1s.? I should like—

Mr. SHORTT: rose in, hi8 place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 23.

Division No. 193.]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gould, James C.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Parker, James


Barlow, Sir Montague
Grenfell Edward Charles
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Barrand, A. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray.


Bartley-Denniss. Sir Edmund Robert
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Bull, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Remer, J. R.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson. Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey).


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hinds, John
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy
Rose, Frank H.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rothschild, Lionel de


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney).


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bride Oman. Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jephcott, A. R.
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bruton, Sir James
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnstone, Joseph
I Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Burdon. Colonel Rowland
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Butcher, Sir John George
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stewart, Gershom


Carr, W. Theodore
Kenyon, Barnet
Sturrock, J. Lang


Casey, T. W.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sugden, W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Klnioch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sutherland, Sir William


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lindsay, William Arthur
Taylor, J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lloyd, George Butler
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K,
Locker-Lampson, Corn. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey))


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill).


Coote, Colin Relth (Isle of Ely)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Tryon. Major George Clement


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lyre-Samuel, Alexander
Vickers, Douglas


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
M' Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Waddington, R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James L.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton).


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Manville, Edward
Waring, Major Walter


Dawson, Sir Philip
Marriott, John Arthur Ransom)
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Mason, Robert
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Edge, Certain Sir William
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edwards. Major J. (Aberavon)
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edwards, Hug h (Glam.. Neath)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton, Earl


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wise, Frederick


Elveden, Viscount
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wood. Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Evans, Ernest
Morrison, Hugh
Worsfold, T. Cato


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Murchison, C. K.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)



Ganzonl. Sir John
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hayward, Evan


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Foot, Isaac
Hogge, James Myles


Banton, George
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gretton, Colonel John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Heyday, Arthur
Kenworthy, Lieut.-commander J. M.


Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Myers, Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M array Fraser
Major Barnes and Dr, Murray.


Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)



O'Connor, Thomas P.
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.

Original Question put accordingly.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 22.

Division No. 194.]
AYES.
[11.7 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Neal, Arthur


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gould, James C.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Barlow, Sir Montague
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Parker, James


Barnston, Major Harry
Grenfell Edward Charles
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barrand, A. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Perkins, Waiter Frank


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, Sir W. R.


Bean, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purchase, H. G.


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Ramer, J. R.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hinds, John
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rothschild, Lionel de


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roundel!, Colonel R. F.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Seddon, J. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Johnstone, Joseph
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Butcher, Sir John George
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Carr, W. Theodore
Kellaway, Rt Hon. Fredk George
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sugdee. W. H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
King. Captain Henry Douglas
Sutherland, Sir William


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lindsay, William Arthur
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Coote, Colin Relth (isle of Ely)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Vickers. Douglas


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waddington, R.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Waring, Major Walter


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manville, Edward
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Marriott, John Arthur Ransoms
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mason. Robert
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Moison, Major John Elsdale
Winterton, Earl


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Frederick


Elveden, Viscount
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill. (High Peak)


Evans, Ernest
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Worsfold, T. Cato


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morrison, Hugh
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murchison, C. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Murray, Rt. Hon. C. D. (Edinburgh)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hayday, Arthur
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hogge, James Myles
Rose, Frank H.


Banton, George
John. William (Rhondda, West)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.



Curzon, Captain Viscount
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Mr. T. Thomson and Major


Foot, Isaac
Myers, Thomas
Entwistle.


Gretton, Colonel John
Newbould, Alfred Ernest

The remaining orders were read, and postponed

PERSONAL EXPLANATION (MR. SHORTT).

Motion made, and Question proposed.

"That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. SHORTT: In the course of the Debate this evening, I had to mention the cases of True and Jacoby, and, in case there be any misunderstanding, I should
like to make it perfectly clear that I very carefully refrained from in any way discussing the advice which I had to give to His Majesty, and confined myself entirely-to a statement of the facts of the cases.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly it Eighteen Minutes after Eleven o'clock.